Talk:Canada/Archive 6

former british colonies
The article reads that Canada was originally a federation of former british colonies. That is not true. It was originally a federation of british colonies. I changed it. But then it was changed back. The rest of the re-writing has been improved. But that part is wrong, or at least misleading.


 * Hello! Thanks for the note.  You will note that the statement was revised (to reflect significant French influence), not merely changed back.  And what of colonies-cum-provinces that joined after 1867 or Newfoundland, which was a dominion before its entry into Confederation in 1949?  Relatedly: you also deleted a germane point about Canada's entitlement as a dominion.  Perhaps we should just remove "Originally" or "former" from that sentence?  We're/I'm open to suggestions.


 * It appears you have made edits using two IPs. I would suggest registering with a user name and discussing such changes before removing information in toto.  This may also reduce the skepticism some Wikipedians may have about such edits.  Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony 19:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Music in Canada
I've noticed recently that there has been a trend of users inserting any and every of their favorite Canadian musician or band into the Culture section. One "sentence" currently goes as such:

"In the case of musicians, some, such as Paul Anka, Gordon Lightfoot, Anne Murray, The Guess Who, Percy Faith, Rush, Bachman Turner Overdrive, Avril Lavigne, Celine Dion, Alanis Morissette, Leonard Cohen, Sarah McLachlan, Shania Twain, Bryan Adams, Joni Mitchell, Nickelback, Sum 41, Nelly Furtado, Simple Plan and to a large extent in the industrial scene Skinny Puppy and Front Line Assembly have experienced tremendous success in the U.S. and around the world."

What should the limiting factors be for inclusion of a musician / band? If there isn't already one, maybe a Music in Canada article should be created. I would create such a page if it were not for the fact that I have the most miniscule of knowledge in that area. Zhatt 22:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * There's already a List of Canadian musicians, so we can remove some names here, knowing they're there. A good start might be requiring a gold album as *one* condition.  Plus some international recognition seems warranted.  A much lower threshold can exist for the list article.   I think Skinny Puppy was a truly absurd one to mention here, since the fan-written article for it admits it's had little air play on the radio, or videos on TV.  --rob 23:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I also notice that there is a Music of Canada article. I will make a redirect for Music in Canada. Zhatt 23:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I tihkin that as long as we have any band or performer named, fans of another band or performer will appear to add their fav's name (e.g., "the Dominion of Canada Trash-core Marching Brass Band"), even if we establish criteria for inclusion. I think the best way to avoid a never-ending inclusion and deletion is to name no band or performer, and link to List of Canadian musicians. Ground Zero | t 13:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The list has been reduced (and subsequently expanded) several times. Ground Zero is right, the only way to prevent this is to list no bands, and link to the list. I've wanted to get rid of this for a while... Mindmatrix 14:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Done and done. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 21:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

For now, given there is no consensus for inclusion, I think removing the list is better than having an expanding one. Although, I think some list, with rules could work in the future. Frankly, even now, I expect people to add minor bands back. If a list is ever added back, wording like "The five biggest selling ..." or something like that could be used. Sure, it could be edited, but the same thing happens with the naming big cities, special places, or anything. Should we remove the Molson reference since other company's might want equal exposure? I think this is classic wiki case, where when we can't agree on content, we choose to say nothing, which isn't great. But, as I said, for now, without consensus, what was done is best, and I'll leave it. --rob 22:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Consider that this is the overview article, and necessarily much briefer on any one subject than it otherwise could be. We're not saying nothing, we're saying it at List of Canadian musicians where it belongs. This article is already too long. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * But we are saying nothing in this article, other than providing a link. Some readers might want two or three examples of prominent Canadian musicians without having to read a lengthy and indiscriminate list of everyone who has recorded music in Canada.  Why don't we bite the bullet, compile a very short list of examples, and agree that it won't be perfect?  This doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing game. HistoryBA 23:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is still an overview article. Consider the contents of the "This is an overview article" notice at the top of this very page. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 00:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But we have tons of material on history and geography and very little on culture.  Would you support the addition of the names of two or three musical artists, if I could find a way to cut down the history and geography sections?  HistoryBA 20:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would not oppose it through editing, but I am arguing against it here for the simple reason that it's not a good idea in the wiki medium. The problem is that people will expand the list until it gets to this size again. Anything that is a lightning rod for instability needs to be handled differently in a Wiki encyclopedia than it would be in a print one. I think this line should be written in such a way that it does not invite people who wander by to change it superficially all the time. One way to do this is to make a separate article (say, List of Canadian musicians successfull in the United States), and police that article. Constant monitoring of who or who isn't supposed to be on that list isn't appropriate for an article on Canada as a whole. Besides, a separate article would make it much simpler to establish the appropriate guidelines for inclusion. Further, how are we to choose only two or three artists while maintaining NPOV? Anyone who wanted to pick two/three different groups or to expand the list would have policy on their side. Lets just not set ourselves up for that never-ending headache.
 * (And, aside, the history and geography should probably be split into separate articles too. The article is already past the "too long" byte limit, and this should be getting done anyway.) &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You raise a very perceptive point about the inherent problems with Wikipedia. I don't want to belabour the issue, but what about listing the three Canadian artists who have had the highest sales? HistoryBA 00:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment and for being so diplomatic. :-) That sounds like an appropriate compromise, and it can always be revisited if it turns out to still be problematic. I think that it reading something like "the three most successfull Canadian musicians (measured by US sales) are..." would at least raise the bar for anyone wanting to expand the list, and so cut out the drive-by fan-additions. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 03:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

National symbols: The National Colours are White and Red
In the article the following is written,


 * The use of the maple leaf as a Canadian symbol dates back to the early 18th century, and is depicted on its current and previous flags, the penny, and on the coat of arms. White (for England) and Red (for France) were proclaimed national colours in 1921. Red and white are also the colours of England's Cross of St. George.

This White for England, and Red for France, where does this come from?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * National Colours
 * - This site gives the history of Canada's colours and their use in England and France.Matthew Samuel Spurrell 7 October 2005 4:39 (PDT)

Howdy Matthew Samuel Spurrell,

Thanks for pointing me towards that website. I appreciate it alot. The White and Red Colours are offically apart of the Mantle (the cloth behind the Knight's Helmet) in the Coat-of-Arms of the Proclamation of the the Arms Dominion of Canada 1921. The Government of Canada website implies that Red is for France, and White is for England. This however is the French point-of-view.

 '''(i). The Maltese Cross, (ii). St. John's Cross, (iii) St. Georges Cross.'''



In the First Crusade the English Troops used St. John's Cross (the White Cross on the Red background). However by the Second Crusade the English Troops had changed, and now bore St. George's Cross (the Red Cross on a White background). In 1277, St. Georges Cross became the Flag of the Kingdom of England. The Kingdom of France however did not recognise the English ownership of this flag, until after the Battle of Agincourt (1415). Following the English triumph, after 1415 the Cross of St. George was accepted as English in the Heraldry of Western Europe.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi! It is sufficient to mention Canada's official colours solely (and not the history) in this, an overview, article.  Elaborate in the subarticle, History of Canada, etc.  Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 20:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Military info removed
I don't think the following info requires a section of its own, thus I removed it. This level of detail on a topic is not warranted in an overview article - all of this info is already provided in linked military articles, and some essentials are already touched upon in other sections e.g. foreign relations. If deemed necessary, add a few lines about participation in wars, etc. to an existing section, but it doesn't warrant a standalone section. Budget details, number of vehicles, etc. are too obscure for this article.

''

Canada currently employs 59,000 military servicemen. The forces consist of 2,400 armoured fighting vehicles, 140 combat aircraft, and 34 combat vessels. The Canadian Forces are comprised of: the Canadian Forces Land Force Command, which is the army branch; the Canadian Forces Maritime Command, which is the naval branch; and the Canadian Forces Air Command, which is the air force branch. In the 2005 federal budget, the Liberal government allocated $12.9 billion for the armed forces.

Since its inception, the Canadian Forces have served in a variety of wars including World War I, World War II, the Korean War and, more recently, Afghanistan.--Aardvark114 03:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)''

Canada's area?
Hello! Can someone clarify and provide authoritative figures for Canada's total area – and, as well, subtotals for land/water, and provinces/territories? There are discrepancies between figures in the Template:Canada infobox and Geography of Canada, et al., and I've seen both figures (for total area) in various sources. Have I missed something? Thoughts? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Can anyone shed some more light on this apparent ... discrepancy? Help is appreciated. E Pluribus Anthony 00:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I will investigate the varying figures and make appropriate editions to appropriate articles ... you're all warned! :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge of official languages
According to the 2001 census ], only 446,290 Canadian residents spokenneither offical language. That is about 1.5% of the population. So I will revert the 95% figure to 98.5%.Luigizanasi 16:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Demographics
Does anyone else think that the demographics section looks out of place with that long list especially when there is Demographics of Canada. Also the figures between the two don't match. Some examples this list says British 16.8% and the other says English 20.17%, so there are more English people in Canada than British?. This list says Black 4.5% and the other list says Black 2.2%. This list says German 11% and the other says German 9.25%. CambridgeBayWeather 00:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree and have removed the list. Such information is important, but it is out of place in an article that is intended to be a broad overview. It is much better suited to Demographics of Canada and List of Canadians by ethnicity. - SimonP 00:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi! I concur that this overview article – and sections within it – should contain relatively brief, germane information, with (lengthy) expansion in appropriate subarticles (e.g., Canada > Demographics of Canada, etc.).


 * That being said, I'd reformat/(re)move any percentages that aren't 'significant': i.e., 5% or below, unless wholly relevant. One could argue, though, that such a list of ethnic origins adds value to Canada's 'status' as a multicultural country (since it is one of only a few that has adopted such a position).  And it is currently brief enough, yet descriptive ... it's not ideal, though.


 * As well: I think various figures may not 'add up' due to the fact that they are comprised of multiple responses. They should be validated, in any event.  Thoughts?  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 00:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The actual census data at . For ethnic origins, you can click on "Ethnocultural Portrait of Canada" and then on the table you want. For a direct link to the ethnicity data: . There is an amazing amount of data.
 * I originally removed the list a couple of days ago, and it was put back in today. At the same time, I changed the text of the listing of major ethnicities and established an arbitrary threshold at 1 million people. Before that it said something about "significant presence", which allowed anyone to put in their favourite ethnic group. I agree the list belongs in Demographics of Canada and/or List of Canadians by ethnicity, and, in fact, it is already there, except for the percentages, which someone may want to add. Luigizanasi 01:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey there; thanks! Yes: given the plethora of data, only brief mentions in the overview article should appear/remain.  As well, I think "significant" can be followed by "(5% or more)" (itself consistent with a high threshold for statistical variations) and may be more apt (as it's a proportion and not as 'arbitrary').  Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 01:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

the northernmost country in north america
what about greenland? , by looking at a world map or globe, greenland looks slightly higher than canada , and isn't greenland in north america ?


 * You are correct. Cape Morris Jesup and Kaffeklubben Island are north of Cape Columbia. Needs to be fixed. Luigizanasi 17:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi! In prior editions, the 'northern part of North America' blurb got removed, so I like the current edition; it's more accurate.  I've replaced "half" (which is precisely 50%) with "portion": Canada occupies actually 41% of North America. :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why did we have to let Mexico into Nafta? :-) Luigizanasi 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Canada, extending to the North Pole, extends further north than Greenland--JimWae 18:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ... and Greenland isn't a country. Jkelly 18:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So then Denmark is the northernmost country? Not only are they stealing Hans Island, but they are also stealing our claim to being the world's northernmost country. :-) On a more serious note, other countries, notably Russia, have territorial claims in the Arctic Ocean up to the North Pole (I am not sure about Greenland/Denmark, norway Svalbard, etc.), so we are not unique. -- Luigizanasi 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's correct to say that Canada is the northernmost country, but Greenland (as a part of Denmark) is the northernmost territory in North America; so indicating only one is imprecise. Is there anything citing Canada's northerly stature?  Moreover, Canada's Arctic claims are not universally recognised: e.g., by the EU and US, so mention of this should be minimised upfront in the overview (but perhaps elaborated upon in Geography of Canada, et al.). E Pluribus Anthony 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The current edition is passable; thanks JW. Note though: "portion" (and a major one at that) is explicit but succinct enough for an overview, more precise than "half" is in this context. E Pluribus Anthony 19:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No other nation recognises the Canadian claim to the north pole. In order to preserve NPOV, should we note that?


 * This is noted further down in the article, but I agree that it should be minimised upfront or qualified. E Pluribus Anthony 06:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Vandalism reverted to previous version that did not discuss Canada's capital as being Rectum, Ontario, and Canada being the world's largest anal lubricant producer. Bluefox 04:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Québec City/Quebec City
This article needs to have consistancy with accents in city names (ie. Québec City). B/c Québec's official language is français, isn't the official name of Québec City (ville-de-Québec) in français, and therefore accented? Or, if this article wants to use the 'Anglicized' version of their names, then do so. This article can't have Quebec City in one place, then call it Québec City elsewhere in the article.


 * Hi! The article on Quebec City (and, for clarity,  this should probably be the form generally used in this English Wp) summarises the various differences of usage in both languages.  Further to that, I realise that the municipal website and elsewhere may use Québec City; however, the book Editing Canadian English (2nd ed.) indicates that the "(t)he form Québec City makes no sense in either language" (p. 77).  E Pluribus Anthony 21:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I know Québec City is not correct in English or Français, my point was simply that the article used both Quebec City and Québec City (which, I noted, you have rectified). Thx! --chris 00:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm totally with you regarding consistency, hence my note and edits. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 08:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Portal link
I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to decide, but the portal box link is intended for the ends of articles - not for the very beginning, nor with extraneous white spacing to permit such placement. Happy editing, --cj | talk 22:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello ... looks good to me. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 22:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well now I get double white space between the 1st & 2nd paragraphs - better than having "Can" of "Canada" in title of infobox written over, I guess. I'm fine with putting the portal at end - I never use it. But I think even less will use it at end. The portal's effects seem to depend a lot on browsers & screen width. --JimWae 22:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah ... is there any reason the portal link has to be upfront, perhaps having only one down below somewhere (where the dupe previously was)? E Pluribus Anthony 23:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If it weren't for the fact that the article lacks a proper "See also" section, I would say the portal belongs there. The custom "Other topics" box that's currently serving that purpose seems to be a rather inflexible way of doing a see-also list; maybe we should revisit that formatting choice? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As a stop-gap, it is possible to position the portal link immediately beneath the infobox.--cj | talk 23:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that would do. As well, stop-gap or not, maybe we should just move the portal box near to the 'sister links' ("Other topics"?) box at the bottom of the page, keeping everything together?  And this won't wreak any havoc on formatting up top.  If there are no objections ... E Pluribus Anthony 23:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Geography - Elevation Map
I noticed the elevation map on the Hungarian site (Kanada), and I think that it would be great for the English Canada site! The "Kanada domborzati térképe" (available from the Ministry's website) gives a great overview of Canadian geography. What do others think? --chris 00:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That map is under crown copyright and cannot be used for commercial purposes, hence according to the current rules, it should not be used in Wikipedia. See Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion and Requests for comment/Crown copyright. Luigizanasi 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm; there are a slew of images under Crown copyright in Wp, including the map already in the Canada article; if they are not used in a commercial capacity, are they not images available for public or fair use in Wp (i.e., they are in the public domain through a government website)? The proviso is summative; I don't see there being a problem.


 * In any event: given the size and structure of the current article, any such map and information should be added to the article Geography of Canada. E Pluribus Anthony 06:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ads for Molson
I think that it is ridiculous to have a link to both Molson and the I am Canadian commercials in the Culture section. Yes, beer is regarded as a Canadian cultural aspect, but is it necessary to place 2 ads for Molson? I think it would be better (to shorten this article and for NPOV) if both were removed, and a link added for Beer in Canada. That way, all beer-makers (including microbrews) can have equal exposure on Wiki. --chris 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello! I agree: however, I would probably go about doing it differently that the current edition.  I think it prudent to only include brief mention of Canadian beer (not just Molson) for your reasons stated and the I am Canadian campaign (since this was relatively significant), not to expand on either or to specifically note Molson. E Pluribus Anthony 01:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good job. I was about to make similar changes when you beat me to it. :-) Luigizanasi 01:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish I was always this quick. :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the way you put it, but "dig"?--chris 02:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I actually had a much simpler version beforehand (and have restored it): appropriate details are in their articles, and the overview article is getting too long and (unnecessarily) detailed already. I may have to do a thorough pruning of it.  E Pluribus Anthony 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction
Let's keep the introductory paragraphs an introduction. If the introduction includes a bunch of information about the constitution, right down to the notwithstanding clause, it would not only probably be the only country article in the Wikipedia world to do so, but it would also not serve the interests of the reader. Does the average reader looking for information about Canada want to know about the notwithstanding clause in the very paragraph or two? I don't think so. I have moved this down to the politics section, where I think it is a worthwhile addition.

As far as the order of our leaders, I think we should follow Wikipedia standards. See Republic of Ireland, Israel and India. In each case, the figurehead head of state is listed first, followed by the deputy figurehead of state (if there is one), and then by the head of government. Every org chart that you will ever see of the Canadian government in any textbook will show the head of state first, followed by her representative and then by the head of government. I don't think that Wikipedia should break new ground here. Ground Zero | t 13:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your first point - but am glad somebody finally thought to mention the notwithstanding clause. The order of leaders is mentioned at least 3 times in article. There is no reason why wikipedia need follow the same order every time. Btw, obviously there is no mention of the queen anywhere in Republic of Ireland, Israel, nor India - but also the offices do not seem to be repeatedly mentioned, nor do any mention their leaders in the lead at all, either. Since there is dispute about which order "tells the story" of Canada, a fair solution is to not always have the same order --JimWae 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously those articles don't refer to the Queen, and I did not say that they did. They refer to their respective figureheads of state, the Taoiseach, the President of Israel and the President of India before mentioning their prime ministers, who wield the real power. I disagree that we should mix up the order in the 3 mentions of the leaders -- I think we should reduce the mention of the leaders to one (in the consitutional order) in order to avoid unnecessary repetition. Taking them out of the lead paragraph altogether seems like a good idea. (The Germany article, by the way, does not mention the president or the chancellor or their positions anywhere! Mentioning them three times seems ridiculous.) Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Once is in infobox, once in lead, and at least once further down - not so ridiculous considering they ought to be included at least twice--JimWae 19:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello to you all! We need to remember that this is an overview article, and an intro to that: elaborations can and do occur later in the article and in appropriate subarticles. I concur that only brief mentions upfront are needed of Canada being a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy (in that order), and that the head of state (the Queen – represented by the GG, or merely the Sovereign (which embraces both)) – should precede the head of government. We should nix or minimise constitutional refs upfront: specific notes regarding the constitution (notwithstanding, et al.) appear in the appropriate article section and/or subarticle. If there are no objections ... E Pluribus Anthony 20:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I propose the following editions to the intro, which is unnecessarily wordy:


 * Governed as a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, Canada is a federation of ten provinces and three territories. Initially constituted in 1867, the country's constitution was patriated in 1982 from the United Kingdom.


 * Canada's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, represented federally by the Governor General, currently Michaëlle Jean. The head of government is the Prime Minister, currently Paul Martin.

or similar. Same points, less text; you can even add appropriate titles with abbreviations (e.g., Rt. Hon.). If there are no objections ...

As the article is getting unwieldy and unreadable (again, as there's no reason to say something three times when twice will do, etc.), I will edit the rest of the article shortly. We really need to use the wikilinks for their intended purposes and not regurgitate everything. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The article may be getting unwieldy but the lead is by no means long and is among the shortest for countries that I have seen. I am happy to see you agree mention of the current constitution should appear in the lead. My only objection to your proposed version, which is fine in all other respects, is that I maintain that since the leaders appear in 3 separate places, and since there is contention over which order best tells the story of Canada, it is only fair that in 1 of those 3 times that the head of gov't (which is the position that affects Canadians most immediately) be listed first. I have been concerned for some time that Canada is being most initially portrayed as a country with a past, but with little present or future (and even little recent past) - as not just stable but static, rather than dynamic - where the only change is the names on the chairs. --JimWae 03:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I'm glad we agree. It's all there as before (actually, more wikified than before), it's just shorter and effectively wikified (e.g., the excessive titles in the prior version were not wikified, but could've been).  In the intro, I don't think the order should connote any prevalence above and beyond its mere presence in the intro and an explicit reading of the text: they are equally important concepts (this is something for readers to decide, not us) and are elaborated upon later and elsewhere.  I've proposed the following order in the lead for balance (parl before cons, etc., but h o state before h of govt, etc.); I also support head of government in the politics section before others, etc., or v.v.  I'm neither here nor there of what should be first in the intro, as long as there's balance.  Remember, as well, that the PM's authority (which is not really mentioned in the constitution, methinks) is derived from that of the Sovereign, so there is a logical basis for listing the h of state first anywhere.


 * If other editions are forthcoming to the proposal or if another version is passable, I'm open to them. Otherwise ... the article is admittedly getting unwieldy.  My overall point is that we can more effectively communicate the various germane points about Canada in the article through economising, editing, and wikifying.  Despite our attempts, the article cannot be everything to everyone.


 * And while I share some of your concern about an erosion of national 'self' (e.g., internecine wrangling, American 'hegemony', et al.), we are (as you note) dynamic: we should remember our past but move forward to bigger and better things. I do not share your pessimism, even though my friends may debate this point. :)  Let's explore where we should go, not necessarily where we can't.  E Pluribus Anthony 03:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna go out on a limb and replace the text in the article with that above; let's see where it leads. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"since there is contention over which order best tells the story of Canada,"
 * Jim, I'm sorry to be on the opposite side of this issue from you, but so far, the only contention comes from you. On the other side is the Wikipedia standard I cited above, the standard representation in text books, Anthony and me. The politics section of the article makes it abundantly clear that the HofS and her rep are figureheads and that real power lies with the PM, even though the order of precedence is maintained. If we want a list in order of who wields decision-making authority, there are a lot of people in government who make more important decisions than HM the Queen and Her E the GG. You'd really have to list most of the cabinet, the Speaker, and so on. If it really bothers you, then perhaps we should leave the current leaders out of the intro, like many other country articles do, and mention them only in the politics section where there is a proper discussion of their roles and relative influence. That way the reader cannot misinterpret the order of mention as having any reflection on the order of their influence. It would also reduce the frequency of the list from three (intro, politics section and infobox) to two. Comments? Ground Zero | t 14:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, GZ; I agree. I think the proposed text is summative.  Remember: the importance of the various positions you cite is fulfilled by dually noting that Canada is a parliamentary democracy (first) and constitutional monarchy upfront.  Mentioning this dichotomy in both the intro and politics sections is appropriate, so long as they're brief; there are many things repeated or elaborated throughout the article, many of which aren't wikified effectively, adding unnecessarily to its length.  If we had to nix this from the intro, I think I'd be fine with that, but I somehow feel it might be naked without this. :)


 * And for our information: there's also an article about the Canadian order of precedence, in terms of protocol. Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 14:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Multi-culturalism / Immigration
There seems to be some disagreement, expressed solely by edits to the article, over how much information about immigration /multi-culturalism should be in this article. I would like to encourage contributors to review Summary style. The article is at 55k. A similar conversation took place at the article on Greece as well. I suggest that multi-culturalism should get a mention in this article, but detailed information about immigration belongs at Demographics of Canada. Jkelly 20:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed: only brief and germane mentions should be made in this overview article, with detail in the appropriate subarticles; see above for my positions on this and that. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo of Gretzky with Canada Cup
the photo is accurat, but the discription isn't. "Ice Hockey events like the Canada Cup are popular in Canada" should be "Ice Hockey events like the World Cup of Hockey (formerly Canada Cup) are popular in Canada". I'll make the correction GoodDay 17:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Political Divisions
Somebody should include political divisions. It has played an integral part of Canadian society and Canadian politics. Why is it not there?


 * It is there: Canada. E Pluribus Anthony 20:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Despite the above, a unique section is being added elsewhere in the article about political divisions, and I've reverted it twice. Such a section in the article (above) already exists.  If any of this content is to be retained (and it is mostly redundant), it should be consolidated with the current section, not created anew. E Pluribus Anthony 05:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Prime Minister
Now that Paul Martin was overthrown by the Opposition, who legally governs the country? The Assembly is dissolved and nothing gets carrier on until the elections...I'll put on nobody for the time being, but we need to clarify this. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.203.156.160 (talk &bull; contribs). 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Martin remains prime minister, and his cabinet all remain in their positions and can fully exercise the powers delegated to them by legislation. No new legislation can be passed because Parliament is dissolved, but it's not much different from any other winter, as Parliament is rarely in session in December and January anyway.  There's no need to delete Martin from the infobox. Indefatigable 22:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good to know; I'll acquiesce to your knowledge on the subject, since I wasn't 100% sure myself. Do you have any references to support this? I ask not so much to verify your contribution, as to educate myself as an obviously uninformed Canadian! :) Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur with Indefatigable: by convention, the incumbent PM remains in power until the GG asks the 'victor' of a subsequent election (i.e., the leader of the party who typically garners the most seats in the House of Commons, whether majority or minority) to form a new government. E Pluribus Anthony 01:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The article Prime Minister of Canada, especially the section Term, explains it pretty well. One of governor general's duties is to make sure there is always a prime minister.  The only exceptions are the few hours between the orderly resignation of one PM and the appointment of the next (such as Campbell → Chrétien or Chrétien → Martin) and the few days between the untimely death of a PM and the appointment of the next. Indefatigable 01:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good reading, Indefatigable. Thanks. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 01:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes: however, there is no direct mention of the GG's role in the transition of PMs (only notes about the dissolution of Parliament), at least in the term section. Should this be rectified? E Pluribus Anthony 01:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we include a sentence or two in the lead section about Martin remaining PM until after the election and the GG names someone else. There will be considerable interest in this and many people are under the misapprehension that Canada does not have a government. eg:
 * Although his government was defeated in a vote of confidence on 29 November 2005, Martin remains Prime Minister until a new parliament is elected and the Governor General asks the leader of the victorious party to form a new government. Luigizanasi 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would probably generalise any such statement, i.e., any PM, not just PM Jr., only noting the current political maelstrom later and briefly. ;) E Pluribus Anthony 03:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Disambiguation Page
I was trying to update the disambiguation page for Liberal. For the link from this article to that page would it be better for it to go to Liberalism or to send it to Small-l liberal? -- murder1 00:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Even though it's more cryptic, I'd probably use small-l liberal: it's more specific to a Canadian context and also links to liberalism (and the same for small-c conservative). E Pluribus Anthony 01:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nunatsiavut
Is this now a new territory, since they self-govern themselves?  --  user:zanimum

No. The article says: "Although Nunatsiavut will remain part of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Nunatsiavut government will have authority over health, education, and justice in the land claim area." So the map won't change, and the leader of Nuatsiavut won't be appearing at First Ministers' conferences unless specifically invited. Ground Zero | t 17:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah - I lost the edit conflict with Ground Zero... No, it's not yet a new territory. Transfer of power will be gradual. The current agreement seems to indicate that the area will be a self-governing region within Labrador. I haven't found anything on the government of Canada website about timelines for creating a new territory. Mindmatrix 17:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with GZ and Mm: Nunatsiavut is not yet a territory as the others and should not be referred to as such. Its status has not been enshrined through an act of Parliament. As well, various First Nations have varying degrees of self-government (or, to some, less than desired). E Pluribus Anthony 21:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Economy
This section strikes me as rife with POV, subjects only tangentially connected to the heading, and the tone is often one of cheerleading. Most glaringly, the claim that "as the economy becomes stronger, notably in Quebec, fears of separation have generally waned" is at best outdated and at worst demonstrably false. Support for sovereignty is higher now than in recent years; a sovereigntist party is poised to sweep the province in the upcoming federal election, and the current (federalist) Liberal government in Quebec City would be easily defeated if an election were held today.

But even if support for sovereignty were indeed waning, which it is not, the claim that those levels of support are closely tied to indicators of macreconomic strength is probably false, certainly highly debatable, and at any rate not supported anywhere in the article. Indeed, I'm not aware of any data that supports such a contention -- which, frankly, sounds wishful -- but I'd be glad to be corrected if such evidence indeed exists.

Moreover, the assertion that fear of Quebec separation constitutes one of the major "long-term concerns," not only for the Canadian polity as a whole, which is more plausible, but specifically for Canadian macroeconomic health, is hard to substantiate. In order to make this claim, I suppose you'd have to be able to show that leading indicators track closely with events raising the likelihood of Quebec separation, and that this is producing notable long-term depression in Canadian economic prospects. Certainly the currency and the TSX suffer short-term hits whenever the PQ get elected, but I'm not sure hard evidence of a close connection between such events and long-term economic health exists to be found. In any case, no such connection is anywhere substantiated in the article. It strikes me as a bromide. Even it were true, I'm not persuaded it merits inclusion as one of only two cited long-term threats to the Canadian economy -- that it's more of a threat, say, than the nexus of burgeoning productivity gaps with the United States and chronic underinvestment in capital equipment and technology. The "brain drain" issue, the occasion of much hand-wringing, also arguably ranks behind these as regards long term economic prospects. So why have these other two received top billing?

The claim that "The 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (which included Mexico) touched off a dramatic increase in trade and economic integration with the U.S." appears superficially NPOV, but in fact is partial and misleading. Canadian trade with the U.S. has indeed increased since the advent of the FTA/NAFTA, but so has that of other nations. The cause has been dramatic increases in U.S. demand, not benefits accruing from the FTA/NAFTA. In fact, Canada's share of U.S. merchandise imports has actually fallen since 1988. The article's claim that the FTA/NAFTA "touched off a dramatic increase in trade... with the U.S." is thus not just POV, it's wrong. The increases have been U.S.-demand-driven and are unrelated to the FTA/NAFTA.

The assertion that "the impressive growth of the manufacturing, mining, and service sectors has transformed the nation from a largely rural economy into one primarily industrial and urban" is at least highly debatable. While it's true that more Canadian now live in cities, basic goods (raw materials and raw industrial products) still constitute more than half of Canadian exports: that's higher than any other G-8 country.

Even the claim that Canada is self-sufficient in energy requires qualification. For example, the largest oil refinery in Canada, the Irving refinery in Saint John, imports virtually all of its crude from the U.S., and it's not a unique case. Canada is indeed a net exporter of energy, but the situation is more complicated than the bald claim of Canadian self-sufficiency suggests.

I briefly considered rewriting the section top-to-bottom, but thought it better to seek some kind of consensus about these kinds of issues before doing so (and likely having the changes reverted). The problems seem to me to fall roughly into five categories: demonstrably false claims, unverifiable claims, unsupported claims which may or may not be true, debatable claims not balanced by opposing POVs, and misleading claims. As a newish contributor, I'm willing to be schooled by the more experienced on the best way to handle each.

Rrburke 17:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * To put the concern in context, I would point out that many top-level country articles in Wikipedia are completely unreferenced, and many contain some element of original research. They also attract many enthusiastic contributors who may be unaware of our style guide and other guidelines.  According to Summary style, this article's "Economy" section should summarize the article Economy of Canada.  If you feel inspired to help improve the article by bringing it more in line with the policies of verifiability and neutral point of view, I'd suggest exploring whether or not this article's Economy section is, in fact, a good summary of the main article, and whether that article's one reference can be used to reference any of the claims in this summary.  That we seem to be drawing some sort of connection between Seperatism and economics without any citation is troubling.  Jkelly 17:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I generally concur with Jkelly: an article for any country can be perceived as being somewhat nationalistic (as much as a focus on Quebec in the above discussion may be), since such articles are contributed to by Wikipedians who largely reside in and are knowledgeable about the topic. Sourcing is a concern, in any event.


 * Take a crack at editing the subarticle (with citations, sources, etc.), which will allow us to possibly enhance the relevant section in this overview article. E Pluribus Anthony 18:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of the stuff Rrburke objects to is lifted straight from the CIA World Fact book. I agree that the section in the Canada article should be a summary of the Economy of Canada article, and that is the one that needs fixing. Rrburke, go for it. Fix the Economy of Canada article, and come back & summarize it here. On the Free trade stuff, while I personally agree with you, we do have to note that many observers attribute the 1990s growth to NAFTA rather than to the growth in demand in the US, so we do have to document that. The Economy of Canada article has too much focus on relations with the US in it. Maybe some information on monetary policy, more on government finance, regional disparities, etc. could be added. Luigizanasi 18:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the input. I'll want to take a more thorough look through the style guide as well as the verifiability and neutral point of view guidelines and assemble some supporting material before taking a run at a substantial rewrite.  Luigizanasi: The CIA Factbook?  Does that qualify as NPOV?  :) Rrburke 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How dare you, even indirectly, intimate that the CIA is not absolutely neutral! Anything coming out of the US government is obviously objective and indisputable. ;-) On a more serious note, the CIA factbook has lots of good statistical information on every country (and some BS). In the beginning of Wikipedia, most country articles and sub-articles were lifted right from it as US government publications are not copyrighted, and for many smaller countries that is all there is in the articles to this day. Luigizanasi 03:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent points, Rrburke. I also find the issues you raised disturbing. Another related concern is the casual use of terms like: "market-oriented economic system", etc.


 * By the way, NPOV does not refer to the sources used, but the article they support. No one acquainted with reason would consider Mein Kampf to be unbiased, but it could still be a perfectly reasonable research source for an article on Adolph Hitler, for example. Similarly, the CIA Factbook and other sources with dubious/problematic origins can greatly add to a NPOV article, though it would be helpful to include sources with a more rigourous and meaningful approach to economics, etc., too. Pinkville 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the fact that you have read the article, identified problems and are not only willing to fix them but have had the politeness to bring it up on the discussion page before setting to work with major changes. If only all contributors had this good sense! By all means read the style guide, sir, but then go ahead and make the changes. It doesn't sound as if any reasonable person would object to what you have in mind. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

International Rankings
Is there a general feeling about whether the individual entries included in this section themselves need to exhibit something resembling NPOV? The inclusion of a ranking based on "economic freedom" sponsored by the Heritage Foundation really has to give one pause. The categories on which the ranking is based are themselves highly tendentious, and the purpose of the ranking seems primarily to prosecute a kind of Washington Consensus POV and not much else. That's fine for the Heritage Foundation, but I wonder if it belongs in Wikipedia. I suppose that you might counter that the baskets of evaluative criteria in any of the other rankings probably reflect the biases of the groups who chose them, but the rest seem to me to appeal to more widely agreed-upon criteria. I'm not even sure "economic freedom" is a concept with any real content beyond POV, unlike, say, press freedom. I just wonder what the limit is: I mean, if somebody displayed a ranking of countries based on "Aryan-friendliness" or some ghastly thing, I'm sure someone would have the good sense to revert it immediately. What's the threshold? Rrburke 04:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think including such rankings is POV: Wp should merely provide information, not necessarily interpret it for users. As long as international rankings are included upon consensus that can be cited and verified (and perhaps fairly well known) – good or bad – I do not see there being a reason to exclude them.  I think it would be POV if subjective interpretations accompanied the rankings or were otherwise questionable.  There may be other lists/rankings for economic freedom (e.g., in The Economist?) if the current list is not well-known or otherwise questionable.  Similarly: a substantial discussion and vote to include the UN HDI in the infobox template ultimately yielded a consensus for its inclusion.  Let me know if you've any questions. E Pluribus Anthony 08:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that putting in the Heritage foundation economic freedom index, or any other developed by an economic think thank with a clear POV should not be in the country or economy article, unless some attempt at achieving balance between different POVs is attempted. But like E Pluribus Anthony says, the Human Development Index was the object of discussion and a consensus, including in my opinion, to partially rectify the inherent "POVness" of GDP, which excludes most non-market economic activity. So the basic rule is NPOV, balance between competing views, and attempt at developing consensus when including potentially controversial things. Luigizanasi 06:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I generally agree: one can go a step further and assert that there is inherent POV in the mere term or concept of "economic freedom" (or "human development") or any for that matter. Where's George Orwell when we need him? :) E Pluribus Anthony 06:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A couple of examples might add flavour to my objection: a few of the categories on which the rating is based are "Fiscal burden of government" and "Government intervention in the economy" and "Regulation" -- I'm sure you get the picture. Would it surprise you to learn that less is better as regards the score? :)  But as appropriate levels of government participation in the economy, for example, are, um, a matter of some controversy, and the connection to the largely undefined concept of "economic freedom" unclear, I would therefore suggest that the purpose of the list isn't to convey information but to convey the POV that government "intervention" in the economy ought to be minimized.  The Heritage Foundation argues otherwise, stating that that countries with greater "economic freedom" (according to their measures and definitions) enjoy "higher rates of long-term economic growth."  Well, if the topic is growth, what usefulness does the "Index of Economic Freedom" retain?  Why not cut out the middleman and add a link to OECD growth rankings (if anyone could actually find such a thing on that most unnavigable of sites)?


 * In short: tendentious, redundant, largely empty of content and not balanced by opposing POV. I propose removing it.  If something ought to go in its place, how about the OECD's Growth rates of real GDP, 1991-2003? -- not without its own problems, admittedly, but less glaring and fewer.  Rrburke 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I somewhat agree. To wordplay: flavour is good, but sensory overload is not. :)  If a consensus agrees to include this or that, we should.  What are the other countries doing?  The Heritage list doesn't seem 'notable' enough: I'd prefer an alternate list for 'economic freedom' or one used throughout Wp (e.g., a UN, OECD, or notable publication list), but I won't argue with a Wp consensus if they support the current list. E Pluribus Anthony 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you think it's worth sketching out some criteria for future inclusions? Ranking lists are funny things, it seems to me, because, being appended to the end of entries, they look like places contributors recommend readers might look to for further information -- I mean, they tend to look like endorsements of the information therein contained: much in the way that "further reading" lists seem to say "here are valuable sources of information on this topic, rankings seem to say "this is a fair way to evaluate a country's performance in this area."  That's a problem.  In the body of an article you can make clear that a POV is being summarized without being endorsed; with bare links to rankings lists that's not the case.  Rrburke 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Massive revert to much previous version by Fawcett5 ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&diff=next&oldid=31326912 (Question posed and link added by JimWae, 14 December 2005)


 * That's how it appears to me. Should we put it back to how it appeared before that revert, and save ourselves from correcting all the errors that we had already corrected?  HistoryBA 16:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been bold and have reverted Fawcett5's edit. I note that his/her edit summary was highly misleading.  Perhaps he/she would be good enough to provide an explanation for the edit here.  HistoryBA 16:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure: I support JW/HBA in whatever they decide. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh what? Very strange. Either there was a database glitch comingling my edit with some vandals (unlikely), or I inadvertently edited an out-of-date version of the article. The only change I intended to make was to remove the following advertising external link that an anon author has added all over the place to further their non-notable business: http://www.trailcanada.com  Probably I inadvertently edited the version corresponding to the dif where the anon added the link.  Apologies and Regards, Fawcett5 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ten wikilashes ... ;) E Pluribus Anthony 20:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)