Talk:Canada/Archive 22

potential Maclean's resource

Canadians feel like they’re on top of the world: poll; While the rest of the world sinks into despair, Canadians have never felt so upbeat about the future by Nicholas Köhler on Monday, December 19, 2011 5:00pm (page 34 in January 9, 2012 print issue).

99.181.153.29 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how we could use that, as it's basically a feel-good piece similar to what I imagine is written in every country in the world at this time of year. It would be appropriate in the Canadian attitudes article, but not here in the overview, to mention that Canadians have at various times been optimistic about the future of the country. And the comparison seems to be only with the US and UK, so it's not exactly establishing Canadians as showing a decades-long trend of being the most optimistic people on Earth or anything - which would be notable if it were true. The piece reads to me like an editorial more than a news article, so I don't really see how we can use it here (but thanks for the suggestion!). Franamax (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The President is Beth Hodson, also a school teacher in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.248.105 (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth

I was trying to do research if Canada was part of the Commonwealth. It may be a good idea to just briefly mention that it is a commonwealth country, or member of the commonwealth somewhere in the beginning so that readers or people researching can know.

Thanks for the consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.119.32.212 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It states right in the lead that Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012

Under the section Early 20th century, it indicates "In response to the downturn, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in Alberta and Saskatchewan introduced many elements of a welfare state (as pioneered by Tommy Douglas) in the 1940s and 1950s."

This is factually inaccurate; Alberta has never had a CCF-led government and thus it is theoretically impossible for them to have introduced such elements. The source of confusion might be the result of the CCF being formed in Alberta. 128.100.238.117 (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done The original author may have included Alberta due to its formation there, as you say. But the meaning was unclear, so I removed Alberta. Thanks, 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The True Founding of the Dominion of Canada

In 1862 the Duke of Newcastle (Henry Pelham Pelham Pelham-CLINTON) "borrowed" 12,000,000 pounds of silver from the PAPAL Bank of England to build useless PAPAL railroads as a "treadmill of debt" mechanism. The "loan" was to expire December 1867 so the need to refinance arose. The refinancing involved the concentration of the "loans" to; Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada into a new central "authority" called the; "Dominon of Canada". The precipitate, of course, involved the genocide of the Original, as opposed to the "ab"-original, people of Turtle Island. The whole process is centred upon the creation of so-called "treaties" then send your agents to anhilated the beneficiaries to the trust-treaty so the land would then "naturally" flow to the PAPACY as an escheat of the land to the vicar of Satan; POPE. If you would like to review the document concerning this banking fraud please feel free to contact me and I shall forward the same to you. Also, this is noted in the book; NEW WORLD ORDER, Old World Concentration found at; wryb.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.66.194 (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:RS. Oh WP:FRINGE as well... Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors cautioned about article expansion

I reverted two edits by JoJaEpp on 14 November, 2011. Recently JoJaEpp asked me why I reverted those edits. Here's my explanation:

• Here JoJaEpp added unsourced details about naval shipbuilding. Note that the citation at the end of that paragraph is about F-35 fighters, not about ships. This article is a Featured Article and, per consensus, all material needs to have a citation from a reliable source.

• With this edit JoJaEpp changed the section heading "Science and Technology" to include medicine. As a featured article, the headings have long been agreed upon. To expand this article to describe medical advances is beyond its scope. JoJaEpp added details about Banting's discovery of insulin. While Banting's discovery was brilliant and important, it is not the only noteworthy discovery in the field of medicine. If we were to do justice to JoJaEpp's proposed expansion of this section, we would need to include all of the noteworthy discoveries in the field of medicine. Such is not within the scope of this article, which is already very long.

There is an infobox that appears when anyone edits this article (and also at the top of this page). It says: "This overview article is already too long and should serve only as an introduction for Canada. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about Canada linked from this article." I hope that this is clear. Sunray (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested change for the Infobox?

I've got a suggestion for a change for the infobox, but since this is such an important article with a long history, I thought I'd mention it here for discussion.

In the section headed "Establishment", I would suggest changing "British North America Acts" to "Constitution Act, 1867". Since 1982, the name of the Act in Canada has been the Constitution Act, 1867. The infobox should reflect our current constitutional structure. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Canada has a new land border

In the lead, replace

"Canada is [[List of countries and outlying territories by total area|the world's second-largest country by total area]], and its [[Canada – United States border|common border]] with the United States is the longest land border in the world."

by

"Canada is [[List of countries and outlying territories by total area|the world's second-largest country by total area]], and shares a land border with the [[United States]] and [[Denmark]]. Its [[Canada – Denmark border|common border]] with Denmark, on [[Hans Island]], is the shortest land border in the world while its [[Canada – United States border|common border]] with the United States is the longest."

Source : Canadian negotiators reach deal to divide Arctic island with Denmark (there is something wrong with the link right now but it should be working eventually, in any case the article is going to be in Wednesday's paper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.78.19 (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This too : Canada preparing to go halfsies on hans 70.48.78.19 (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Agreement is still a draft, let's wait till it is finalised. CMD (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

God Save the Queen

As this has been discussed here in the past, a mediation has commenced at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:Music of Canada regarding whether "God Save the Queen" should or should not be included in the Music of Canada template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Add Audio For Oh Canada

Why is there no audio file clickable for playing Oh Canada? If you look at the page for the Republic of Ireland for example, you can click to hear the anthem. That's cool. Canada should have the same thing. Someone should do this. I like to feel I've done my part by bringing up the problem, and hopefully someone equally patriotic but more technically skilled than I am can fix this omission. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.8.202 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Anthems added. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 05:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed - as per old talk - that said we could talk about this again - but you will never get consensus to add and off tone American versions of theses songs. File:United_States_Navy_Band_-_O_Canada.oggMoxy (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would we require audio of the anthems here, anyway, when that's already available at the articles on the anthems themselves? Even if Republic of Ireland has audio for the Irish anthem, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

(BTW, it's "O Canada".) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I see we have a file back in its place - I agree I dont really see the need as there is a link to the main article, but nor do I see any harm in it being here. However this is not the norm, nor is there even an infobox field for it. SO i guess i am impartial about its inclusion or exclusion, but do think a good version should be selected if inclusion is the wish of the majority here on this article. Moxy (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any file for the reasons already given. If we decide to use one, I don't want the US Navy version since 1) it's American and 2) it doesn't use the traditional arrangement. While it's "nicer" than the midi piano version that's there, it's not appropriate in my mind. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does it need to be there? The info box does not have to cover everything. On the contrary, it does do harm - the info boxes are bloated, it's a little irrelevant, and demotes further far more significant and fundamental info like population, capital city, GDP, etc --Merbabu (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the above, I've removed the sound file. It is very easily found at the top of the article O Canada, which is already linked in the infobox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Related topic

• Template talk:Infobox country#Can we add a small button to play the anthem?.Moxy (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Geography, Canada has more lakes than any other country, not true

"Canada has more lakes than any other country, containing much of the world's fresh water.[83] " This is not true.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lakes_in_Finland

There are 187,888 lakes in Finland larger than 5 ares (500 square metres). Most are small, but there are 309 lakes or reservoirs larger than 10 km². They are listed here along with some smaller noteworthy lakes.

From Finnish goverment: http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=12335&lan=en

There are 187 888 lakes in Finland. Lake is here defined as a body of standing water larger than 5 acres (500 m2). The number of lakes larger than 1 hectares (10 000 m2) is 56 000. Lake number density is largest north of Lake Inari, sometimes called the Finnish Pond District (Lampi-Suomi). In this area there can be 1 000 lakes within 100 square kilometres. In the Finnish Lake District, a typical value is 40 lakes within 100 square kilometres.

AND IN CANADA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lakes_of_Canada

This is a list of lakes in Canada. Canada has an extremely large number of lakes. The number of lakes larger than three square kilometres is estimated at close to 31,752

Cheers Sami

22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.195.142 (talk)

Thanks for pointing that out - I've changed the wording to "large lakes" and added a ref note that the article is only referring to lakes over 3 square km. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But that's not true either. I just wanted to point out that there is another mistake in Wikipedia about Finland (big lakes). I trust what Finnish authorities are saying about big lakes in Finland:

The number of lakes larger than 1 hectares (10 000 m2) is 56 000 in Finland compared to Canada where the number of big lakes larger than three square kilometres (3000 m2) is estimated at close to 31,752. So 10 000 m2 is bigger that 3000 m2 and the quantity 56 000 is much bigger than 31 752.

22:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.195.142 (talk)

No, that is bad maths. 3 square kilometres is not "3000 m2" - a square km is a square where each side is equal to 1000 m, with a total area of 1 million m2. Google it - 1 sq km equals around 100 hectares. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, note that Finland's total area is only about 340,000 square kilometres - if it really had 56,000 lakes larger than 3 square kilometres, nearly half the country would be underwater. 56,000 lakes of hectare size is equal to about 560 square km. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a number like "500 square meters" sounds big, but it isn't. That's only 25 meters or so in diameter. In Saskatchewan (where I currently live) that isn't considered a lake, that's a "slew" or a "pond". There are an enormous number of small ponds in Saskatchewan; there are thousands in the immediant vacinity of the city where I live, and far more further north. I'd be surprised if this province alone didn't approach the number of lakes in Finland... assuming that you're going to call a dirty little duck pond a "lake". Gopher65_talk 03:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, let's think about this logically. According to Wikipedia's own Finland and Canada pages:

• Finland is 338,424 km^2, and 10% water
• Canada is 9,984,670 km^2 and 8.92% water.

That yields 890632.564 square kilometres of water in Canada. That is a slightly naive calculation (I have no idea if that includes ocean), but at the same time 890,000 is several times greater than 340,000. Canada has more water than Finland has total territory. Gopher65_talk 03:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe anon is saying more lakes that are larger than a specific size. We may have parts of the Great Lakes and a few very large lakes but I would assume that the spin is lakes larger than some specific size. What we really need is a WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no universally accepted definition of the difference between a lake and a pond. Most definitions however place the dividing line somewhere between 2 and 8 hectares. Still within this range the two terms are often used interchangeably, and there are some water bodies designated as ponds that are much larger than 8 hectares.Mediatech492 (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But if we have a few large lakes (Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, Great Slave Lake) they may have more area than a number of lakes that are slightly larger than the minimum size. In short, it's a game of semantics and we should simply focus on the total volume of the lakes represented rather than the quantity, unless a ref compares apples to apples. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ontario alone is claiming 250,000 [1] so there's not much doubt, even if you let Finland count puddles - but yes, finding a RS number all in one spot for Canada will be difficult. Franamax (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The biblio at the bottom of this article has some RS possibilities - Lake Scientist - particularly FN # 1. The Interior (Talk) 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No idea how reliable this is, but this page claims Canada has at least 3 million lakes: linky. Gopher65_talk 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada's more than 755,000 km2 of freshwater represents 16% of the freshwater area in the world. In fact, with two million lakes and rivers covering 7.6% of its landmass, Canada has the world's largest freshwater system [Refs below]

"State of Canada's Fishery". Fisheries and Oceans Canada. December 30, 2003.

Reader's Digest Association (Canada) (2004). The Canadian Atlas: Our Nation, Environment and People. Reader's Digest Association (Canada). p. 18. ISBN 978-1-55365-082-9.

Nicola Förg (1 May 1999). Canada: Pacific Coast, the Rockies, Prairie Provinces, and the Territories. Hunter Publishing, Inc. pp. 13–. ISBN 978-3-88618-368-5.

Moxy (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

GSTQ in the Infobox

Though I supported having "God Save The Queen" in the infobox, in our last discussion, I now believe it should be excluded. I note that "Hail to the Chief" isn't placed in the infobox of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. GSTQ has no legal status whatsoever in Canada--there is not a single federal act or regulation mentioning or governing it--and thus unlike O Canada (a song which is defined by statute) has no official status in the country. I have therefore removed it. → ROUX ₪ 18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"our country reeks of trees... The Interior (Talk) 18:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Roux. I don't even know why it was added in the first place. Absolutely support removing God Save The Queen from Canada's infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nations United (talk • contribs)

• Just to clarify, this is the Template:Music of Canada we're discussing and there's nothing to remove as it's currently not in the infobox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, actually... → ROUX ₪ 21:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The song's "legal status" is a red herring. The song was recognised by parliament and is recognised by the government as the royal anthem and it is used officially as such. There's a field in the infobox for royal anthems, and, though we should keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, see the infoboxes of some other countries that have both national and royal anthems: Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Norway, Sweden, and Tuvalu. The United States has no royal anthem and is therefore not a relevant precedent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a Head of State song, just like Hail to the Chief in the USA. Furthermore, it's a song which is more associated with the British monarchy. Concerning Canada, it belongs at the Monarchy of Canada article, due to its not being about the country, 'but' merely the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why is there a 'royal anthem' field in the country infobox and it's filled at (at least) the eleven country articles I linked to? I can't say for certain, since I didn't make the inbut I'd imagine it's because some countries, like Canada, have royal anthems. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of GSTQ in the infobox, smacks of an agenda by the MLC (Monarchist League of Canada) & that's not exceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSPIRACY. (I'm sure the Monarchist League of Canada has better things to do than make sure there's a 'royal anthem' field in the Wikipedia country infobox template and the Danish royal anthem is inclued in the infobox at Denmark, anyway.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is it in the other Commonwealth realms (with the exception of the UK & New Zealand)? GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

God Save the Queen is official in any event in which the Queen or Governor General is present. It is optional at other times. [2] You may not like it that the Queen has official status in Canada but the fact is that she does. This is not a monarchist conspiracy.Mediatech492 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a Head of State song, which belongs at the Canadian monarchy article. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference, this was discussed almost two years ago: Talk:Canada/Archive 19#royal anthem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really care either way, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. The info box has a slot for that song obviously. What else could go in that slot, if not "God Save the Queen"? If its not the official song, at least its an unofficial song for the Canadian Monarchy. Anyone disagree with that? I know the Queen/Monarchy is more closely associated with the British than with Canada, but the monarchy is still a part of Canada, and if the song is part of the Monarchy, shouldn't the song be linked in the info box, if there is a slot for it?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's official. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm already convinced that it doesn't belong in the country infobox. Now, it's up to others to unravel the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediatech492, you're not representing the entire case. "God Save the Queen" is not official at any event in which the Queen or Governor General is present, it is the royal anthem and is played along side "O Canada" in such cases, however there is no legal requirement to play it. It ceased to be an official national anthem in 1980 and is played out of respect for our monarch.

Miesianiacal. While it was discussed a while ago, no clear consensus was reached as can be seen by the lack of consensus at the bottom of any discussion. It appears consensus is being formed so while this is being discussed, I suggest you cooperate and not add it to the infobox since it seems that the consensus is currently against inclusion. Could you please indicate nation articles that have the anthem of the head of state included where it is not the de facto national anthem? I see United States doesn't list "Hail to the Chief", nor does Australia while New Zealand lists it but has a note "'God Save the Queen' is officially a national anthem but is generally used only on regal and vice-regal occasions", which doesn't apply here. United Kingdom lists "God Save the Queen" as its official national anthem, while two of the individual nations, England and Scotland list it as the de facto national anthem while going out of their way to indicate that there is no legal national anthem and Wales has their own. So I think you need to make a case for why the head of state needs her anthem listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing long-standing material while a discussion about it is ongoing is your invented rule. We therefore need not abide by it.

If you're looking for precedent, other examples of countries with national and royal anthems listing both in their respecive Wikipedia articles have already been provided. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

How long-standing? I saw that you added it today. Was it there earlier?

I'm not looking for precedent, I'm looking for the consistency you demanded with the GG articles. But they've been provided where? Not in this discussion. Please provide a current list.

Also while you're quoting the article from Heritage Canada let me add that "'God Save The Queen' has no legal status in Canada, although it is considered as the royal anthem, to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Seven of the countries in the world plus Canada list it? I think we should side with Australia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting; that was the right thing to do. The anthem is at least eight years long-standing before roux deleted it today; the last discussion about it two years ago resolved to keep it. Consensus can change; but it has not yet done so.

It would seem that having the royal anthem here, in the specific field provided for it in the infobox template, keeps this article consistent with the majority of articles for countries that have both national and royal anthems. There are eleven above, not seven, and to which we can add Thailand. Australia is one of the odd ones out.

Again: The definition of "official" is not "designated by statute only". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As indicated Wales is in the same league as Australia and does not list it (already listed above). Countries within the United Kingdom and the UK itself don't list is as the Royal Anthem, but it is national anthem there. India is commonwealth, but Elizabeth is not queen of India and it is not listed (you specifically asked for commonwealth above). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wales, the UK, and India are irrelevant; none has both a royal and a national anthem. I didn't ask for anything. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wales isn't irrelevant. They are part of the UK and have their own national anthem and so unless the Queen has conceded her throne there, they have a royal anthem as well.

India isn't irrelevant either because you asked for commonwealth nations that don't list it. I did so suck it up princess. If you don't want the answers to your questions, don't ask them. Or to paraphrase Diefenbaker, don't ask questions that you don't know the answer to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wales does not have a national and a royal anthem. India does not have a national and a royal anthem. Show a diff where I asked for Commonwealth nations that don't list it.

What's the point of this exercise, anyway? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. GoodDay asked for Commonwealth. The point of the exercise is to show that not all nations where there is a monarch list the royal anthem in the infobox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all nations with a monarch have both a royal and national anthem. Not all articles on countries with both a royal and national anthem list both in the infobox; but we knew that already (Australia). I reiterate my earlier point: most articles on countries with both a royal and national anthem list both in the infobox. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wales is irrelevant to this discussion IMHO, as Wales is not a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what. You get Australia to join ranks and I'll drop my argument here. It seems odd that they should be the odd man out and quite frankly, I would soon show solidarity with them than the Bahamas. But that's just me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the Ozzies are also talking about this but are not following the sources. In Australia it was declared the Royal anthem at the same time the National anthem was recognized (1984) - QUOTE = "His Excellency, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, ... hereby declare: that the anthem 'God Save The Queen' shall henceforth be known as the Royal Anthem" - Australian Bureau of Statistics (1986). Year Book Australia 1986. Aust. Bureau of Statistics. p. 44. Retrieved 16 April 2012.. Moxy (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice there is no such declaration for Canada. No Act of Parliament, no Order-in-Council, nothing. → ROUX ₪ 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The importance of that being? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be stupid. Disingenuousness is one of the most obnoxious things you do. GSTQ is official in Australia because it has been declared to be. It is not in Canada because it has not been declared such. You know this, of course. → ROUX ₪ 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC):

On what grounds have you determined it has been declared to be official in Australia? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What part of "don't pretend to be stupid" was unclear? → ROUX ₪ 19:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Roux was asked at his talk page if he could explain this edit summary, specifically the claim that "no consensus for inclusion, per the talk page. when (if) consensus for inclusion is reached, you may add it back." Since he impolitely declined to respond at his talk page, perhaps he could do us the favour of pointing to the Wikipedia policy on which he based the above assertion? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I reserve the right to remove and ignore garbage on my talkpage. → ROUX ₪ 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you or can you not meet the request? If you can't, it will have to be assumed you made the "rule" up. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to assume any incorrect thing you wish. → ROUX ₪ 19:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words: You made it up. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, you are welcome to assume any incorrect thing you wish, as you have already done. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Then please prove me to be incorrect. I'm genuinely interested in seeing this policy that you used to justify your revert. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If only I gave a fuck about your demands. → ROUX ₪ 20:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) M. Roux has provided a reference stating "His Excellency, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia ...". Are you questioning the reference, did you not see it, or is there another issue?

I understand that they are in the middle of a debate to become a republic, but they have an officially declared royal anthem while we in Canada have an official national anthem and a royal anthem with no legal status as such. You do know where I am pulling that from don't you? So the only red herring (see your statement above about its lack of legal status being a red herring) is that we have a royal anthem but it's not enacted in civil law, only common law. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw the reference. I clearly asked roux to explain why he thinks the reference makes GSTQ officially the royal anthem. It doesn't, after all, use the word "official", though he demanded a source from the Canadian government that specifically used the word "official" specifically in conjunction with GSTQ. There's nothing either to say that something is official only when it has been given some status by act of parliament or order-in-council.

In fact, though, in this case, what is and isn't official and the definition of the word aren't important. The infobox has a parameter for a royal anthem and we have multiple RSs that affirm GSTQ is the royal anthem of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"we have multiple RSs that affirm GSTQ is the royal anthem of Canada" - no, we do not. This has been explained to you multiple times. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

See:

• Department of Canadian Heritage: "'God Save The Queen'... is considered as the royal anthem... The anthem is performed officially in Canada..."
• Department of Canadian Heritage: "...[T]he playing of Canada’s Royal Anthem 'God Save The Queen'...(p.54) Since the proclamation of 'O Canada' as the National Anthem in 1980, 'God Save The Queen' has been performed as the Royal Anthem of Canada in the presence of members of the Royal Family, as part of the Salute accorded to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors and on other occasions.(p.I)"
• The Canadian Encyclopedia: "'O Canada' and 'God Save the Queen'/'Dieu sauve la Reine' were approved by Parliament in 1967 as Canada's national and royal anthems."
• Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia: "[T]he Royal Anthem, 'God Save the Queen'..."
• Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan: "[T]he Royal Anthem, 'God Save the Queen'..."
• Department of National Defence: "Royal Anthem: The music of 'God Save The Queen' is considered the royal anthem of Canada... [T]he royal anthem, 'God Save The Queen'..."
• The Grand Orange Lodge of Canada: "'God Save the Queen' also serves as the royal anthem for most Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and Canada."
• Government of British Columbia: "Royal Anthem God Save The Queen"
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: "God Save the Queen remains the royal anthem of Canada."
• Governor General of Canada: "The Viceregal Salute is composed of the first six bars of the Royal Anthem, 'God Save The Queen'..."
• Department of Citizenship and Immigration: "The Royal Anthem of Canada, 'God Save the Queen (or King)',...
• Maclean's: "God Save the Queen, our official royal anthem..."
• Ernest MacMillan: The importance of being Canadian: "In Canada's centennial year 1967, 'O Canada' with its French text, was approved as the Canadian national anthem and a year later an amended English version of a somewhat free translation by Robert Stanley Weir was also adopted. 'God Save the Queen' was made the official royal anthem."(p.281)

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes, blah blah blah, you've posted those before. There is still no law (not even an order-in-council) stating that GSTQ has any official status. It has no legal status in the country. Stop your nonsense. → ROUX ₪ 20:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't ask for a law or order-in-council stating GSTQ has official status (even the Australian O-in-C you pointed to as an example doesn't say that). You said in response to my words "we have multiple RSs that affirm GSTQ is the royal anthem of Canada": "no, we do not." The above proves that we do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

They are incorrect. See also: no laws whatsoever governing the use or status of GSTQ. → ROUX ₪ 20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

About the only way I can see 'both' anthems being in the infobox, would be if we had official & unofficial, placed underneath them. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary and confusing. The anthem can be dealt with briefly in the article and at more length at Monarchy of Canada. It does not belong in the infobox as, unlike everything else in the infobox, it has absolutely zero legal basis whatsoever. → ROUX ₪ 20:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the best compromise, that I can offer. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Of what relevance is "legal basis"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This pretence at stupidity grows tiresome. → ROUX ₪ 20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil, folks. Miesianiacal: The lack of legal status of GSTQ seems to be significant to many editors. Sunray (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Sunray.

Two editors (by my count) feel legal status is important. However, why they do remains a mystery. In the absence of a clear explanation, it can only be inferred from their various comments that they think something is official only when it has been granted some status by law (act of parliament or order-in-council) and, since GSTQ has not been made the royal anthem by law, it is not officially the Canadian royal anthem. We need to first determine if that is indeed their opinion and, if it is, both look at its validity and consider why it's relevant to the question of whether or not GSTQ should be shown as the royal anthem in the infobox here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of clear explanation? Go read what I wrote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you do believe that something is official only when it has been granted some status by law (act of parliament or order-in-council). (Neither you nor roux have said explicitly whether you do or don't believe that, but we'll roll with the assumption you do until you say otherwise.)

There's no dictionary definition of "official" that aligns with yours. So, it appears to be invented. (And, indeed, testing your definition by applying it to the real-world example of GSTQ and the Union Jack in Britain leads one to the conclusion the UK has no official national anthem or national flag (and both should therefore be removed from relevant UK infoboxes across Wikipedia), which, even to you, must sound wrong.)

Further, the country infobox template doesn't ask specifically for a royal anthem that's been made such by law (or even one that's official, by the normal definition of the word). It merely asks for the royal anthem, and it's well established by numerous reliable sources that the royal anthem in Canada is "God Save the Queen". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it has been established that GSTQ is considered as the royal anthem. It may have escaped your notice, but 'considered as' and 'is' are two very different things. Stop pretending otherwise. There is no law stating that Canada even has a royal anthem, let alone defining which song that is. → ROUX ₪ 19:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We need a clear-cut criteria for inclusion of anthems, in this infobox & other country articles infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the legal terms de jure and de facto? I accept that "God Save the {insert gender appropriate term for the monarch here}" is the de facto royal anthem. I don't know that our royal ties are sufficiently significant to merit inclusion. We're not as far along the road to becoming a republic as Australia or Jamaica (the latter of which include it!) however I suspect that Canada will not endure the full reign of Charles and certainly not William. That said, arguing from a de jure position doesn't fly in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And the goalposts shift again... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay suggests clear-cut criteria for inclusion of anthems in infoboxes. Focusing on objective criteria may be a way forward in this dispute. What are the reasons for inclusion/exclusion of the de facto royal anthem? Sunray (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

At least those opposed to it have goalposts. Those in favour of it seem to have fond but undefined wishes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you, or someone, could summarize your reasoning, briefly? What I read so far is that GSTQ has never been legally adopted (i.e., de jure), but is the de facto Royal Anthem. How does this relate to inclusion/exclusion in the Infobox? Are you saying that only information that has been legally adopted can go in the Infobox? Surely that isn't the case. I'm not seeing defined goal posts, yet. Would someone be willing to clarify? Sunray (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunray, as I noted at my talk page, I don't think this is the place to conduct this exercise; this spat is a smaller offshoot of the original dispute at Template talk:Music of Canada, which still hasn't been resolved properly. Can we move this over there? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sunray (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. And for the record, I have come to the conclusion that inclusion here is acceptable. Miesianiacal correctly pointed-out a few days ago that the Template:Infobox country has a parameter for royal anthem. It appears to have been added specifically for Canada because someone kept adding it in to the national anthem parameter on a new line. Without clear direction for its use, we must assume it is acceptable to use here and with other country articles. As mentioned above, the anthem is de facto and not de jure and I no longer have any objection to its inclusion until such time as Canada ceases to be a constitutional monarch, the gender of the monarch changes, the nation ceases to exist, or I die, whichever comes first. "God Save the Queen". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree, if the parameter exists and a de facto royal anthem exists, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making use of it. There should absolutely be a footnote describing it's legal status, but other than that I can't see a reason for objecting. Take it up on the template talk page. --MichiganCharms (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A proper note is a good idea, or prefix it the way it is on the England article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please say 'United Kingdom', as England is a poor comparison due to it's not being a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think they mean England's infobox layout is the example they are referring to not the state of the country.Moxy (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Canadians

Looking for input at the Canadians article. Question is does the article need an etymology section like this article. Pls see Talk:Canadians#Etymology.Moxy (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Date format

This edit states "restore accessdate format per WP:MOS & WP:DATERET". However DATERET states "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." (Emphasis mine). The whole article wasn't conforming to it. The reference dates were using ISO 8601 standard format only because the tool used to generate the references uses them. The article uses mdy dates formats and the whole article should conform to it, not just the body dates while the reference dates are different. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

1> And the editor who made the changes just 2 weeks ago was using a tool that specifically prevents him from EVER aligning date formats to YYYY-MM-DD. 2> You have given no reason to ignore WP:DATERET - 2 weeks is NOT an evolution. Whatever reason the accessdates started as YYYY-MM-DD is irrelevant. Your opinion about what the format "should" be is just *your* opinion in conflict with WP:DATERET. YYYY-MM-DD is an official Canadian date format, and I object to this unauthorized campaign to eradicate it from wikipedia --JimWae (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would we use 2 different formats in the one article. especialy when the preferded format is clear (as indicated by the "cat" its in). The edits two weeks ago looked to me to bring a all under the one format (and is why I assume all did noit revert it - while till now). As per WP:DATERET this article has a VERY clear sign of which format is being used. So what is best for our readers - to have 2 formats or one? Not sure what campaign your referring to eradicate it from wikipedia, but that's irrelevant to this conversation, except for the fact its a clear indication of our preference.Moxy (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Jim. I did not say that the ISO 8601 date format was incorrect. I did state that the whole article should conform to it, and that's not an opinion. It's the guideline you're pushing for us to use. 2) I'm not ignoring the guideline. I'm following it. You haven't read the whole thing, just the second point. Read the first point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And YYYY-MM-DD is not an official Canadian date format. DD-MM-YYYY is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarify. Not at the Government level. Feel free to read Date and time notation in Canada. The CSA accepts the date format but we should only have one date format on the page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at WP:DATERET and what I see is that the body of the article should use month before day or day before month but not YYYY-MM-DD. Below that in the refernces section it says "Publication dates in article references should all have the same format." and gives examples of month before day or day before month. It then follows with "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD." and gives an example using YYYY-MM-DD. So it would seem to me that the MOS is saying in the one particular instance YYYY-MM-DD can be used. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So not DATERET but a different section of the MOS. I'll accept that. So now we have three two formats for three different sections:

1. MDY for body copy
2. MDY for publication dates (as in Mulvale, James P (July 11, 2008))
3. ISO 8601 standard format for reference dates

If no one sees a problem with having different formats and the MOS condones it shall we continue this way or shall we unify the date formats? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So what do we do ? Do we ignore them in-favor of one format not to confuse our readers - our do we blindly follow rules that are clearly contradictory? Again whats best for our readers many formats or just one?Moxy (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: we should edit the reference formatting to align with the date formatting used by the article text. Though the ISO format is technically allowed for access and archive dates, in my view it provides no clear advantage, and is also more difficult to parse, particularly for readers. I thus seek consensus to change the formatting used to mdy. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Agree - Moxy (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong first sentence

Canada ( /ˈkænədə/) is a Fruit with juicy islands goodness and its not a country consisting of ten provinces and three territories.

??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.110.15 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have a mistaken conception about the nature of Canada. Lucky this article is around to inform you, huh? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather boring vandalism, although it's at least not crass. CMD (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please someone improve this article.

Please someone improve this article. Canada is way more than that. Try to use Canada has very high life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living and income equality, and it ranks high among most of nations in terms of education, health, quality of life and economic dynamism. The International Monetary Fund classified Canada as a developed economy, and the World Bank identified it as a high income economy. Canada is a member of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, NATO, and the World Trade Organization. The service sector dominates Canada's economy, followed by the industrial sector and agriculture. Tourism is a significant source of revenue. The state controls a part of the economy, with substantial government expenditure. The United States is Canada's most important trading partner. Canada provides a universal health care system and free primary and secondary education, while supporting culture through numerous public institutions and through corporate investments in media and publishing. The nation prides itself in its cultural, artistic and scientific contributions to the world, as well as in its cuisine, wines and sporting achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.4.202 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a summary article, not an advertisement. — Gopher65_talk 14:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides, many of its scientific, cultural, economic achievements etc. ARE included (and sourced) in the article. Read the whole thing, not just the intro, before bemoaning it as unrepresentative. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"Dominion of Canada"

"Dominion of Canada" has been added to the lede as the country's official name - I personally don't know an awful lot about Canadian official nomenclature, but could anyone who does explain whether this is valid? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It was officially the Dominion of Canada for years. Not sure when that ceased, but suspect it was around 1980. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it still be valid to quote in the lede? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In the Constitution Act of 1867 -1982 it states:

"... the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act." (Article II Sections 3 & 4)

Therefore "Canada" is the official name of the country while "Dominion" is the word that describes the type of country that Canada is, as opposed to "Republic" or "Kingdom", etc. It has been a long standing convention to refer to it as "The Dominion of Canada", and use "Dominion" in ways synonymous with "Canada" but as far as I known "Dominion" has never officially been part of the name of the country. The government of Canada website www.canada.gc.ca never uses "Dominion" as part of the country's official name. So if it had any past official status it is not now so recognized. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Name of Canada has good refs about this...I dont see the need to bring in the name debate in the lead. More info can be found in the first link in the first section of the article (Etymology).Moxy (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This subject was debated ad nauseum for *years* earlier in the life of this article. Final consensus after years of references and debate: it use to be called The British Dominion of Canada, then The Dominion of Canada, then after about 1950 or 1960, simply Canada. It is no longer referred to in official GoC documentation as anything other than "Canada", and thus it has no long-form name at the current time, although this could change in the future. — Gopher65_talk 16:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Canadian monarchists argue that Canada is a Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure anyone that has read a book on the topic would say that - as the title was outright rejected long long long ago.Moxy (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about Gopher65's timeline since Canada day wasn't called that until 1982. Can't speak to the term as used for the nation though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

*Nods* Although the government began limiting use of the term "Dominion" in the 50s, and had nearly phased it out by the 70s, it wasn't seen as practical to completely remove the term until after the constitution was patriated. Shortly after patriation, Dominion Day was renamed Canada Day, which was one of the last public uses of the term by the federal government. Since then, essentially nothing (except historical documents and essays). Even in non-governmental circles "Dominion" has fallen out of favour as the long-form name for Canada. Some federalists like "Federation" (since Canada is one), some monarchists like "Kingdom" (since Canada is one), but no one seems to want to associate themselves or their movement with The Founders and the Jem'Hadar. No clue why. — Gopher65_talk 03:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Because, despite being the "Great White North", Canada is a lousy place to get Ketracel White. And a Jem'Hadar without the White is not something we want to think about. oknazevad (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Weird phrasing; only monarchists "argue" Canada is a kingdom... Any dictionary seems to define a kingdom as "a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen", which pretty aptly describes Canada. (Can't say, though, if the global secret society of monarchists has as much influence over dictionaries as it does over Hollywood (The Queen, The King's Speech, couldn't you tell?))

Regardless, because Canada is a kingdom doesn't mean its name is "Kingdom of Canada". Or "Dominion of Canada", for that matter. The Constitution Act 1867 seems pretty clear that the country is a dominion named "Canada". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

New OECD Data About Canada

Does anyone want to incorporate some of this into the article? It covers education, economics, and society. http://oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/canada/ Zurkhardo (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

YES! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

May I take the reigns on that or should I leave it to someone else? I understand that this article is semi-protected. --Zurkhardo (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, new sourced info is always welcome. Which sections will you be adding to mostly - Economy and Demographics? Michaelmas1957 07:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

IS there any way to see this info on the link above - the site does not work. I want to see as this "OECD" place I have never heard of nor have seen anything about it. Were does its info come from etc... the site is dedicated to "people's well-being" are we sure this info is accurate or if the site has any credibility. How come this from this site is not used anywhere?Moxy (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the above link, the automatic signature formate included "--" in the url. CMD (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've used it before for the Iceland edits. It's a legitimate source so I'm not sure why it's not working. I had intentions to use it mostly for demographics, economics, and culture. --Zurkhardo (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

New Sub-Sections?

Should we add sub-sections for things like "Religion" or "Education" as we see in other articles? Or is it best to leave well enough alone? Just wanted some thoughts. --Zurkhardo (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The paragraphs on education and religion in the Demographics section are pretty concise; I don't think they warrant separate subsections, Other articles tend to have religion/education subsections because they include much more information. Michaelmas1957 03:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally like more subsections for easy navigation on a page that is new to me. However I do agree with what is said in most GA and FA reviews I have seen.. and that is that the fewer sections there are tends to make articles flow better (its just an overview article) ..and the fact the section have subsections on there main articles that go into more detail.. like.. Culture of Canada, History of Canada, Canadians, Canadian confederation etc.... Moxy (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the standard procedure is for subsections in long articles, but in my experience they make an article easier to navigate. I quite often look up countries, and when I do the first thing that I do is check to see if the subject I'm interested in has a subsection to click on. Now personally I'd know to click on "Demographics" if I were interested in a country's religion, but that is less than clear for the average reader. Having a sub-sub-sub section like "religion" that readers can click on probably wouldn't hurt anything, and wouldn't require a drastic reorganization of the article. — Gopher65_talk 14:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If a particular topic has enough prose that this warrants the creation of a subheader, it's useful to ask if the topic is getting a bit too much space on this summary article. For readers looking for information on this country's religion, there's Religion in Canada. For everything else, there's Mastercard ctrl+F. CMD (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate not to have a separate section on religion. Canadians are among the world's most indifferent to religion. It's a matter of balance. Tony (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Across Canada, more than 75% claim to have some religious affiliation. It's a matter of statistics. So yes, to two sections since they're quite distinct. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure there is (or should be) enough content here to warrant a religion subsection - it falls under Demographics, covered appropriately. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Insufficient material is a different issue than non-inclusion based on perceived "indifferent to religion". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis to the assertion that "Canadians are among the world's most indifferent to religion" that is complete nonsense. That said, there is no need in this article for new sections for Education or Religion, both topics have their own Wikipedia article: Education in Canada and Religion in Canada which give detailed coverage of their respective topics. I believe both these articles began as sections of this article and were migrated to their own articles due to the amount of in each case, and to give them the detailed attention they deserve. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion is a presonal thing - not a country position...and is why its covred better with a section in the Canadians#Religion article.Moxy (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, about a year ago I did try to add a Religion subsection, but it was reverted - can't quite remember the specific justification, but I think it had something to do with the shortness of the section. Michaelmas1957 14:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Countries wikiproject indicates a summative 'demographics' section in country articles only, which should contain tidbits about a country's languages, religions and such. The details seem better placed in the dedicated subarticles. Ubiquinoid (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Linking of major terms in lead section

Per User:Ubiquinoid's request for comment - is it appropriate to have wikilinks to major terms like United States or Pacific Ocean in the first paragraph? I know the Manual of Style discourages it, but the majority of people who visit Wikipedia are looking for a general overview of major subjects - thus, having links to other, related major subjects seems to make sense. Does anyone else have an opinion? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The links in no way hurt or make the article hard to navigate. Best leave in place to be safe. PS side note - Michaelmas1957 could we get you to use citation templates when adding refs to match the overall style that is in use.Moxy (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bear that in mind in future. And I agree that the wikilinks should stay. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No. They should be kept out as per WP:OVERLINK. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There was once a campaign to eliminate all links in the lead. To bad this dis not happen. The main reason I was saying leave them is they will get linked again despite our policy... so I was thinking best to leave them so we dont have to revert the re-linking all the time. They will be re-linked again and again and again.Moxy (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that can be as persistent as the overlinkers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone should develop an anti-overlink bot... Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Moxy and Michael, the links in no way harm the article, aide the user when visiting, and they are of value and necessary. For example, 'United States' - a quite substantial topic for this article - was previously unlinked (which is otherwise not linked in the article) while, inconsistently, 'United Kingdom' and a host of other terms were linked. As such, I have restored the links. For dissenters, please state WHY these terms few, major terms should not be linked upfront, instead of simply pointing to a policyguideline about why. Ubiquinoid (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't just vote down a clear policy. It's not this article they're harming. It's the policy and other articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You also can't ignore policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK is not a policy but a guideline and it states right at the top that it can be ignored on occasion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You still really haven't addressed the why. Do you honestly contend that these links harm the article? Please. Stripping an article of useful links is more so. WP:OVERLINK is not a policy, but a guideline. Perhaps attention should be diverted to the overlinking of other terms in the article, instead of the underlinking of relevant ones. In the meantime, since a consensus of commenting editors support them so far, which IS a policy, they will remain. Ubiquinoid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

What part of guideline do I need to explain? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The part where you kept calling it a policy instead of a guideline, maybe? Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, it's worth noting that that particular definition of overlinking is excessively general, and far too prone to individualized interpretation, to be a useful "policy" to cite here. An article on Canada quite correctly should contain a wikilink to United States — it's actually the single foreign country to which a wikilink is the single most critical for an article about Canada to contain, given its geographic proximity and cultural similarities. The idea that it constitutes a "major geographic feature" that shouldn't be linked to at all is at best highly subjective and at worst utterly tendentious. And it is not a clearcut contravention of policy just because you say it is, Mr. Görlitz — for one thing, WP:OVERLINK is a guideline, not a policy. And for two, it's not defined with any clarity about what it actually means, or any consideration of the context for where such links are useful and where they're not. An article on Iqaluit probably doesn't need a direct link to United States, frex — but a general article on Canada as a whole most certainly does. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Bearcat on this, the link is appropriate. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If Bearcat was speaking accurately based on the actual edits made I would agree with him too. However what's being linked that shouldn't be is North America and the three oceans that mark the boundaries and the United Kingdom. The guideline implies that if a native English speaker would be likely to know the geographic area, it's not necessary to link to it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The question, as posed, asked about United States. Your edits included unlinking United States. Ergo, I was speaking accurately based on the actual edits made. United Kingdom is also a legitimate link, North America and the oceans perhaps not — although there are other Canadian-related articles where in that particular context they should be, such as the oceans in articles where they're more immediately relevant (e.g. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Cape Breton Island, Vancouver.) But I certainly wasn't misrepresenting the edits as edited or the question as posed here. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So I did. The US doesn't need to be linked per the guideline's guiding policy. I defy you to show me a single English speaking person who doesn't know what the US is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bearcat: I would offer that the oceans and the continent are worthy of linking - after all, we are placing the country in context of those significant entities in the lead. Ubiquinoid (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand the guideline. It's not context, it's understanding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you seem to not know if it's a policy or guideline, so I am unsure if you actually do understand it. Regardless, the argumentation since hasn't really been convincing. If a visitor comes to the page with the country so described, would it not help the reader to have the links present at the onset? I agree that major entities like 'continent' and 'country' need not be linked, but major proper nouns used to describe? Those topics are particularly curious with the absence of links, when topics like Upper Canada are linked multiple times. Context is not irrelevant. Ubiquinoid (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss the content and not the editors. I'll be friendly since this is the second time, but the next time I will tag your talk page.

To answer your rude comment, I do know and I misspoke earlier.

If an English-speaking visitor came to the page with the country so described they would know what the United States was. They would know what North America was. They would know what the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were. Context is everything.

WP:REPEATLINK is not WP:OVERLINK it's also not WP:LEADLINK however if you were actually concerned about it, you could remove the repeatlinks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, condescendingly, you have noted (inaccurately) my lack of understanding regarding the guideline. Tag as you will. If an English speaker came to the page, who is to say what would be known based on their level of knowledge of English - North America in particular has a number of interpretations, though one does prevail; the Arctic Ocean is considered by some a sea of the Atlantic, the USA is flanked to the south by the United Mexican States, etc. As for pruning other links, I have considered this ... but the resistance to linking even these terms (and only initially) gives me pause. Nonetheless, more users than not seem to concur with linking these terms. I will desist if need be and compelled to. Ubiquinoid (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If a native English speaker came to the page it would be obvious. You're being disingenuous. Do you seriously believe that a native English speaker would not know what the United States is? Do you seriously believe that a native English speaker would not know what North America is or that it has a number of interpretations? You might want to understand the spirit of the guideline buy reading the talk on the page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not disingenuous to point out that those whose understanding of English is not advanced may be confused; by what justification is the article/wiki for native speakers alone? And, your own read (and editing) of that talk page regarding this topic (as mine) should demonstrate that your position is not inviolable, given examples earlier in that section. My main point is that those proper nouns are deserving of links given the scope of those topics within the context of the lead. Ubiquinoid (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Native English speakers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, so much for those many millions more who speak ESL. Anyhow, as iterated, that is not the main point. Ubiquinoid (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind you arguing with me, but I would like for you to suggest that you read the talk page of the policy where native English speakers are frequently discussed. You might want to ask them what that means. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Two rather simple points - a) as a general principle, links are not simply to explain what something is at a basic level for those who might otherwise be unaware, as if WP entries were dictionary definitions, they are to enable navigation to the detailed pages on related topics; b) the suggestion in the guidelines to not link to "well known" or "major" terms has the explicit exemption where those terms are relevant to the topic at hand, which a couple of people commenting here seem to have slightly glossed over in claiming that such links are discouraged or even deprecated in every instance. Taking either of those points into account - let alone both of them - it's hard to see how there are any valid arguments in favour of removing the links under discussion. N-HH talk/edits 14:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not optimized solely for the benefit of native English speakers; we do have a requirement to take the needs of all potential readers, including ESL speakers and five-year-old kids who are only just beginning to learn about the world outside of their own hometown, into account. Which means it's important to link to all topics which are relevant to link to in the context of that particular article: countries with which Canada has a historical or geographic relationship, other geographic bodies which are directly relevant to an understanding of Canada, etc. Just to repeat, you're imposing a subjective interpretation of WP:OVERLINK here, while other users have a quite legitimate point that your interpretation appears to be contraindicated by WP:UNDERLINK, which states that contextually relevant topics should be linked — meaning that the only real question here is whether topics such as United States and United Kingdom are contextually relevant to Canada or not. Basically this is just turning into a circular and pointless edit war, because what we have is two different guidelines (or, more accurately, two different clauses within the same guideline) that are effectively in conflict with each other depending on how you choose to interpret them. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure there's even that level of contradiction between the two sections of the guideline - underlink says link to provide context; overlink itself recommends not linking [so-called] major terms only when they are "[not] particularly relevant to the topic of the article". Hence, under the actual phrasing of both sections, the links at issue - to neighbouring and/or related geographic and political entities - are clearly fine. A few editors go around citing "overlink" and removing perfectly valid links, which are going to be useful to plenty of readers, when they don't seem to know what it actually says in full. It doesn't quite say what it seems they wish it did; all we are left with as the real justification is "I don't like that link" - which is neither here nor there. N-HH talk/edits 21:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Actually, there's a map to the right so I'm not sure why we're labouring the point of indicating where it's located. The only readers who won't see the map are those on mobile devices or the visually impaired using a screen reader. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Countries#Lead_section; the content has been in place for quite sometime, and harks of content in other country articles. Ubiquinoid (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And the debate on the links is not about helping people find out where Canada is on a map or locating it physically. What has that got to do with anything and who ever said that it did? N-HH talk/edits 23:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the worst degradations of our wikilinking system I've ever seen. The overlinking in the lead is pretty disgraceful, and a significant disservice to readers. It's beyond me why a reader would want to divert to an article on "Arctic Ocean" or, for that matter any other ocean, or "United States", just after starting a large article on "Canada" in a big-picture context; there's even a map to the left for the seven-year-old who's totally illiterate in world geography, but more to the point, there's a Geography section for providing navigation to the surrounds.

Useless deceptive pipes clutter the opening too. "British" and "French" don't go where they say, but somewhere that might actually be useful to readers (e.g., "British colonization of the Americas")—but no one's going to click on "British", are they. And surely those targets are better unpiped in the History section just below? I'd link "Canada Act", but not "British Parliament" two seconds later, which again is for a section below, if it's really necessary at all. "English" and "French" pipes to "Canadian English" and "Canadian French" might be useful if not deceptive and in the right section—again, no one's going to click on them, and I hope they don't while reading the lead. Direct links in Language section below would be very appropriate; um ... they're already there.

Turning half the lead blue teaches readers to ignore linking in general. It drags this article down, which is a great pity. Tony (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you really don't like it. Given that this featured article has had these germane links in place for many moons, the opinion above seems a little too ... rich, almost advocating wiki-Newspeak. Did it not occur that when someone visits the article, they may open added windows to browse the various relevant topics? Also, for comparison, if one were to glance at, say, the 'Canada' article in Britannica, the very topics at issue are the ones with links there. (I am only referring to the ones of note in the 1st paragraph, not others mentioned which could be tweaked.) To delink these relevant items, given their context in the lead, is a disservice to our readers, and added discussion seems rather circuitous. Ubiquinoid (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The delinking was done back in early March by Ohconfucius, as yet another example of the drive-by scripted stripping of linked terms by a very small number of individuals. There was no attention paid to the appropriateness of the links, and this form of stripping away links is not endorsed at the linking guideline. In fact, discussions there indicate that geographical articles are in fact the most appropriate place to link to major geographical terms, given their direct relevance to the subject. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a geographical article either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the lead article about a county. Yes it is a geographical article. And these are the exact sort of links the relevance clause at MOSLINK was intended to include. They should stay. oknazevad (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, actually they're not. These are mostly very silly links, a nuisance to the serious reader, and a degradation of the wikilinking system. If you seriously expect anyone to click on the link to United Kingdom in the lead of this article, especially when there's a temporally relevant link to British empire within a second of it, you're misleading readers and vandalising the function. Tony (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that I, as someone who finds no nuisance with the link placement, is not a serious reader? The arrogance in that statement is utterly appalling. Just because you don't find a link personally useful and don't like it doesn't make it absolute truth. Get over yourself. Your continuous claims of "link value" are just your opinion, and were they followed, would clearly lead to an underlinked Wikipedia that might as well be on paper.

This was intentional hyperbole, but of the same variety as the accusations that those who oppose excessive underlinking are looking to create intentional overlinking. Relevance is in the eye of the reader, not the editor, and I think we should err on the side of linking as we can't assume what the reader knows lest we reinforce Wikipedia's systemic bias. I also knkw that no everyone (and even say hardly anyone) reads the whole article from beginning to end; Wikipedia readers aren't schoolchildren we can force to learn a certain way and we would be foolishly condescending to try to force anyone reading style. And I do believe that part of linking is to aid navigation, not just explain the article that's being read. That's very overlooked. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In your first paragraph, you twist my words to claim that I've personally attacked you. Then you launch into a personal spray against me (please read WP:CIVIL). I'm not going to join you in the gutter. Could I ask you to stop personalising and instead to put your gloves back on and lend a hand—as I'm doing on this page—to improve the article. Tony (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And at the beginning of my second paragraph I straight up say it was hyperbole, a slight jab at your fairly hyberbolic initial statements. I was trying to be funny, and get people not to take things so seriously. Seems you missed the point. It happens, no big deal. The rest of my second paragraph I stand behind, though. I don't think these links degrade anything, as they fulfill their three-fold purpose: to provide context, to aid navigation, and to enhance understanding of relevant terms. oknazevad (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a featured article? I thought it was defeatured a few years ago. It should never have been featured with an appalling lead like this. No, I really don't like a half-blue lead, and the messiness and unprofessional look is only secondary. It's because it ruins the wikilinking system and is likely to turn readers off clicking. Totally inept. This article really should go to FARC for a good review on a number of counts. Tony (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been featured for years, links and all. The article was reviewed two years ago, as you well know since you participated. As you should also recall, you complained about links at that time and were informed that the links were appropriate for the readers. To quote Mav, "If United States is not appropriate to link in the Canada article, then I don't know where it would be appropriate." --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok so tony you dont think it should be FA level because of links in the lead? What other problems do you see besides a few links you don't like? Anything wrong with the refs, content, structure or presentation of the article? I think FA reviews are good for articles but dont see a need here as of yet and certainly not because a few words are linked. Is it your belief a threat to take the article to a review will help your position?Moxy (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Peacockery, some poor prose, poor linking practices. That's my first impression. Tony (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok lets fix it. can you pls give actual examples. Those of us that edit articles for content would love to improve such a visible article.Moxy (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, before we even get to the poor linking practices, let's take a superficial look through to identify bits of puffery and repetition. Sometimes it's not single instances, but the whole that looks defensive and a bit like a Lonely Planet brochure full of goodies:

• "With the sixth-highest Human Development Index and ninth-highest per capita income globally, Canada has one of the highest standards of living in the world."
• "a very high GDP per capita"
• This one gets three mentions of similar wording: "Canada and the United States share the world's longest undefended border"
• "Canada is noted for having a positive relationship with the Netherlands"—a bit marked, the "is noted for"?
• "Canada has a strong democratic tradition"—vague and unsupported.
• The whole "Economy" section is one shiny fact after another. Aren't there any problems, either historically or now, in Canada's economy? There's a little mention about debt and jobs at the end, but they're not put into context. And oh yes, the Toronto caption is ultra-positive: "Toronto possesses one of the largest city economies in the world, with a total 2011 GDP of over US$144 billion.", with the clunky "possesses", too. The NAFTA caption and text don't give the bad stuff. It was very controversial, wasn't it?
• "Canada possesses one of the world's most highly developed science and technology sectors. In 2011 alone, Canada spent ...". BTW, "Science and technology in Canada" offspring article is pretty lame. Embarrassing and premature to link to it.
• Demographics: the word "Canada/ian" ... could it be substituted or cut a few times?
• "According to the 2001 census, 77.1 percent of Canadians identify as being Christians" ... why not the 2011 census data?
• Opening is vague: "Each system is similar, while reflecting regional history, culture and geography." Possessed yet again.
• "Canada's two official languages are Canadian English and Canadian French."—wrong: take a look at ref 185.
• I find the language map a bit weird in its wholesale categorisations over the landmass.
• Culture: yep, here it is again ... "Canadian society is often depicted as being "very progressive, ...". Something more precise centering on the other epithets might be more useful?
• "Government policies such as publicly funded health care, higher taxation to redistribute wealth, the outlawing of capital punishment, strong efforts to eliminate poverty, an emphasis on multiculturalism, strict gun control, and the legalization of same-sex marriage are further social indicators of Canada's political and cultural values". Looks like an attempt to differentiate oneself from the US. Surely political and cultural values are more nuanced that this, even if the sources blurt this out. Glen Gould, the genius musician, doesn't rate a mention?
• Almost every sentence is a superlative, up-up-up, which becomes wearing to the reader: "Canada has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates in the world,[175] driven by economic policy and family reunification, and is aiming for between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents in 2012,[176] the same number of immigrants as in recent years.[177] In 2010, a record 280,636 people immigrated to Canada.[178] New immigrants settle mostly in major urban areas like Toronto and Vancouver.[179] Canada also accepts large numbers of refugees.[180] The country resettles over one in 10 of the world’s refugees.[181]"
• One small table links 18 times to "Population of Canada by year". And links are not meant to be bolded. Why not one link, explicit, perhaps at the bottom, rather than deceptive and unlikely to be clicked on.
• The left-side pics sometimes cause text sandwiching at various window-widths/settings. Are you sure they're necessary on the left?

That's just scratching the surface, but it's something to start on. Tony (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

An aside: regarding Nikkamaria's peanut gallery editing, first to remove the links of note and then to move them down to the geography section, there is little justification - why deprecate major topics in the lead by burying the links? There is no rationale to link only a subsequent instance for a topic, per the manual of style and such. Of course, if this editor actually discussed these edits, a consensus could possibly be swayed to accommodate and change the long-standing linking ... which I believe is reaffirmed here. Until then... If it continues, I will report the editor for edit warring. Ubiquinoid (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Your post doesn't appear to be conducive to collegial editing. Nikkimaria is well-known as a highly skilled editor, and I'd say rather that you need to make the case for your unconditional reverting of her work.

You say, "why deprecate major topics in the lead by burying the links" ... well, why don't we push the whole of the "Geography" section up into the lead, then, since we seem to be deprecating all of that section by not including it in the lead. I've heard no proper reasoning for this insistence on providing for readers who want to divert from the article seconds after they've begun it, rather than expecting them read the thematic section, where they're far more likely to want to click on relevant links. North America is a geographical, almost continental term, and I see a (slightly more reasonable) link to British North America, and one to "[France's] colonies in North America" about 10 seconds later in the lead. Why do we need to stuff in North America as well, here in particular? What is the rush? Last time I looked at WP:LEAD, the role of the lead was not to divert readers to other articles, but to introduce them to the current article.

Why do we need to follow the link to Canada – United States border three words later with a link to United States, that little-known entity? (Funnily enough, if I'd wanted to read the US article, I think I'd have gone there and not to the one on Canada.) Then blow me down if there isn't a pretty focused link to Canada–United States relations a paragraph later. Including the broad link makes no sense.

United Kingdom is a bad example of linking: the context is the 18th and 19th century colonial period, but the link target goes to the hip-modern UK article; British Empire (even a section-link therein?) would be half-way better, but we have the specific British North America already; and remember, this is the lead, not the thematic section here. Half-way better, too, would be a section-pipe to United_Kingdom#Since_the_Acts_of_Union_of_1707, which at least mentions Canada.

There are now nine links in the opening paragraph, involving 24 of 77 words, just under a third of the text; it's a veritable blizzard of blue. I'm puzzled as to what kind of reader would click on any of these items right here when they're trying to absorb the opening big picture. In a serious encyclopedia, the links would be anchored in their logical thematic location, not shoved in readers' faces in the most unlikely place. Or perhaps the linking frenzy has an ideological rather than a practical basis. Tony (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Ubiquinoid: I think that you have been grossly unfair to Nikkimaria. Referring to those edits as "peanut gallery editing" seems to be unjustifiably insulting to an editor highly experienced at copyediting, and at getting articles to GA and beyond. It may be a bit unorthodox, from a en.wp point of view, not to link them at their first occurrence. To move those links away from the lead section seems to make good sense. These are major geographical features of the globe that are well-known enough to I daresay >95& of our readership, and there is little need to link these in the two or three opening sentences. And instead of removing them outright, it seems highly intelligent to move these to the 'geography' section where their relevance is heightened. You seem to be exhibiting signs of ownership in the face of a bit WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Instead, I would encourage you to put yourself in the place of the reader. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would urge you to do the same. I'm a reader as much as an editor and it looks like pointless removal of utility to me. But hey, I'm wrong of course. I also don't see how you can accuse Ubiquinoid of "ownership" when there are plenty of people backing their position, and opinion appears to be about 50:50 split as of now on this page; those repeatedly removing the links are trying to "own" the page just as much. Happy however to see that you accept your argument is about simply not liking the links, rather than being policy-based. Perhaps it's also time to finally grasp that linking is not simply something to be done when random editors guess that a certain percentage of people might not know what a thing is and hence need it explained/defined for them via the link. N-HH talk/edits 15:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly a personal attack. If that continues other editors should tag talk pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

When an editor reverts, doesn't partake in discussion on the talk page yet defers other editors to it, and persists, 'peanut gallery editing' is exactly what that behaviour is, despite the other editor's accomplishments. In fact, I would expect an administrator, no less, to conduct themselves better. If retracting that commentary fosters amity, I offer it, but see no reason to. Ubiquinoid (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? Does it matter? One should always respect other editors regardless of their behaviour. WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Nikkimaria. Ubiquinoid (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice if we could get all (admins, laymen and newbies) not to edit the particular parts in dispute until the talks are over - clearly they are not as of yet . We have no need to have the disagreements here spill over to this "HIGH" profile article for all to see. Since the last round of edit wars (today) no one has come to the talk page to talk about the actual problem. Can we get all involved in editing to pls talk an not edit war.Moxy (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. My fundamental difficulty is that Nikkimaria persisted in reverting, despite talk page discussion (while referring others to it) - s/he did not participate and seemed quite clearly to prefer delinking the terms through such actions. So, that editing behaviour adds to the problem, and I do not apologize for calling them to account for it. I would expect someone who's a sys-op and long-term editor to behave better and partake more, hence my assessment. Ubiquinoid (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you're making a few factual errors here, and it would be helpful for you to correct these. First, I don't think I did refer anyone to the talk page on the linking issue (if I'm mistaken, please provide a diff). Second, I was not simply reverting - I initially removed the links entirely, then tried moving them to the Geography section (where they are much more appropriate, as they provide context that is unnecessary in the lead, which is meant to be a summary of this article and is already overlinked), and also tried retargeting/reconstructing some of the links, in an effort to find a state amenable to both "sides". Third, there's no such thing as "peanut-gallery editing", nor "deprecating" topics/links/whatever by moving them down, nor a "sys-op" in this context. (Finally, to avoid that "s/he" stuff, I'm female, as the editors above point out). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finally joining this discussion. As for factual errors, I don't think so. In a few of your edit comments, you noted: 'please discuss on talk', 'linking' and similar. Second, you were clearly reverting [3], only later moving the links down without discussion to this point or consensus, not supported in any guideline I've seen; hence my assessment. [4] Your reverts without discussion simply inflamed things further, IMO. Ubiquinoid (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"linking", yes, but could you link to the "please discuss on talk" edit? The only one I recall with that summary was about an unrelated issue. I think you'll find that your summary is merely a more inflammatory version of mine, once you recall that edits attempting to compromise are encouraged as a means of resolving disputes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct regarding 'please discuss on talk' - my apologies, but the intervening edits and lack of commentary did not help matters amidst discussion, IMO. Ubiquinoid (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe no one - not you - not anyone should edit this particular part till this talk is over (as per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing) . No matter if your right or the others are right - or I am right - all should be talking not edit warring. Your making assumptions about others before they have spoken - would it not be possible that her edits were many to help the situation unlike your guess at her actions. I would love to see all at the talk page - but perhaps you could PM her and get the real reason behind her edits - or ask her to talk here. Looks to me that her solution of linking them in the other section was a very good faith effort unlike your reversal with an insult - Can you see how she could be upset and unwilling to talk at this point? Moxy (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, my assumption is based on direct observation - BRD. And this editor reverted initially without 'moving' the links down and then without discussing it. Again, N. is an administrator and, given their contributions, should know better. Too bad if they are upset, but they should've considered that first and heeded requests to discuss. That is all. Ubiquinoid (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly upset, I just think you ought to reconsider your approach to this dispute. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So should you and other participants. This really is so basic an item, as a fairly new editor who was surprised that the topics were not linked, by the level of resistance to do so. Ubiquinoid (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can clearly see by this long discussion - its not basic. That said I do believe its time for others to get involved Wikipedia:Requests for comment (though I do believe one-side does have it right). We seem to have two sides that both are pointing to policy and thus are at an impasse. We should also talk about each words that is being linked and unlinked and each the merits of being linked or not. Does this sound reasonable? I am willing to write a neutral RfC request (an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input).Moxy (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for offering. However, I would ask if that is the best approach. This would seem to be more appropriate to an RfC on the whole linking issue, rather than on one specific article. Furthermore, would an RfC take preference over the observations from the FAR? If so, why? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no discussion of these links at the FAR. You and Tony had a disagreement about whether United States should be linked. The only other relevant comments AFAICS was "overlinked", which no one seemed to dispute aside from the US link. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally, a lead for the readers, not the editors

Walter G's edit makes the lead so much simpler, plainer and stronger to read at the opening, and relocates the links to the appropriately themed part of the article. It's perfectly consistent with the guidelines. Thanks, Walter. Tony (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To you, and others, quite possibly. However, you do not speak for every reader - not all of whom necessarily read as you do, have the same aesthetic sense of blue links, want to link and move across to the same things, or want to have to plough through a whole article to get to such links. I - and I'm sure others - think the edoit hobbles navigability and contextual links for no good reason other than the whims of one or two editors and to no discernible benefit. In any event, as noted ad nauseam, overlink accepts the inclusion of relevant links; there is also a rather heated and divided discussion on the talk page in the section above about these links. Citing "wp:overlink" and "talk page" when removing the links in question - which have been there for a long time - is misleading and inappropriate. N-HH talk/edits 14:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and as such I've restored the links to the lead. There was never any consensus to remove them in the first place; it was simply a driveby application of a generic delinking script in March. The links are very relevant to the subject, as outlined at the FAR a few years back. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't quite see how a version where a small group of editors have unilaterally - and contrary to the lead and linking guidelines - removed several options for readers, citing that they know best what links are best for everyone coming to read the entry, including those maybe just skimming across the lead, is one "for readers, not the editors". Surely the version where readers can - if they choose to - link onto or across to manifestly relevant and related topics is the one for readers rather than editors? N-HH talk/edits 17:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean as opposed to the small group of editors who have unilaterally--and contrary to WP:OVERLINK--insist on keeping several links that the readers don't need? How full of yourself you are! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but it is not a "small group" endorsing the keep option. You have to look at the bigger picture, with respect to the country articles, and note that while many editors are adding and/or maintaining relevant geographical links, only a very small group is systematically going around to each country/province/state/city article and using a script to arbitrarily remove them. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure it's a small group. It's not much larger than those who have commented against including links.

You have to look at the guideline and the edit you insisted on reverting. Now the material isn't even linked in the geography section. I have no problems in also fixing other country articles to remove links like these from the lede and keeping them in the appropriate section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations, CKatz: you've just significantly damaged the article. It's bloody-minded, ideological, pointy editing to get your own way at any cost. Tony (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  "...bloody-minded, ideological, pointy editing to get your own way at any cost"? Thank for for scaling back the over-the-top personal attacks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we move this talk forward - because as of now the disputed links are liked twice - in the lead and Geo section. I am sure we can all agree no need for double linking.Moxy (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the readers had their Prague Spring. Then the tanks came in and rolled it back to the old arrangement. Tony (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we get you to have more mature responses in the future - and ones that move the conversations forward over insulting others again and again.Moxy (talk)

If I'd known this whole thing was going to turn into an edit war, I never would have mentioned it in the first place... Michaelmas1957 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Drop them from the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's better to bring such issues to the forefront, as they indicate bigger problems and they can be addressed. As a consensus clearly doesn't support dropping the links from the lead, I do not think that will happen soon. Ubiquinoid (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the readers had their Prague Spring; I'm not standing up to the tanks. It's interesting that those driving the tanks care nothing about actually improving the article. When I said I don't think it's of FA standard (a view I still hold) someone suggested I specify what was wrong. Nikkimaria came in and addressed my quite long preliminary list of points and was abused for her trouble. I hope she doesn't desert the article. I certainly don't feel inclined to pick up the shovel again. I see someone has just reinstated one of the several defensive statements about high living standard. Puffery is the order of the day, it seems. Tony (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes its much harder to actually edit and help the article then to criticizes. I think she did a good job - and i will remove the latest puff.Moxy (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that Ohconfucius has made some welcome functional improvements to the links in the lead. This is more like it: reader- not editor-oriented linking. Tony (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of those more focused link changes seem sensible to me. I wish more time and energy was expended on genuine link improvement like that than simply outright removal following a list/script of supposedly "banned" links, or the even more random and arbitrary link removal that sometimes happens. However, I would dispute again the assertion that removal of that sort is for the benefit of readers while retention is some selfish editor-fetish. Have you asked any readers about this? Do you have survey/poll results to hand? Looking at it theoretically, it's rather obvious, prima facie, that offering links to more relevant topics, and hence giving the choice to the readers, both in the lead and in the body, is more reader-friendly than not including them - arguing that some editors have the right to remove some perfectly relevant and obvious links outright or bury them in a part of the page that the reader may never get to, in order to limit reader choice to links that those editors want to push readers towards, and think are "better" for them, looks more like East European communism to me than the rumblings of a people's liberation movement. But as we know, totalitarian communists are good at telling people what is good for them while at the same time convincing people that black is white. And before telling others to look at the guidelines (eg WG), perhaps people should do that themselves and see what they say about links to major items when those terms are relevant to the topic; also, what they say about repeating between the lead and the body. This, too, is allowed. N-HH talk/edits 11:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fast poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lets see were we all stand on this as of now so we can move forward.

• Link words in Geo section not lead (This will lead to many reverts but owell) .Moxy (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Link in Geo for North America and the oceans; use a more specific link than US and UK (border/relations and British Empire seemed appropriate). The lead is for providing an introduction to this article; links are useful for providing context, which is more helpful in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Link in Geo. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• What Nikkimaria wrote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• What Nikkimaria wrote. In addition, does Moxy mean "link in Geo section" and not in the lead? Could he clarify in his post here, please? Tony (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed...sorry i was not clear.Moxy (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• per Nikkimaria what she wrote, and how she organised the links was about right, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Pretty much what Nikkimaria wrote. I think that no generalized terms should be linked in the intro unless *really* relevant to the topic (Canada) at hand. "North America", "British Parliament", and various oceans are all examples of things that shouldn't be linked in the intro. However, Canada specific things like "Canadian Shield" or "Canada/US border" could be linked if they are mentioned in the intro (I wouldn't mention them, but whatever). So in conclusion, only things specific to this topic should be linked in the intro, not general terms. — Gopher65_talk 15:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Per WP:OVERLINK and WP:CONTEXTLINK respectively, we should link to things that are "relevant to the topic of the article" and "to the broader geographical area of which [a place] is a part", which clearly includes, by any standard, the continent in which Canada sits and the oceans and other nations it borders. British parliament maybe not, I accept, but I don't see that phrase in the lead anyway. Per WP:REPEATLINK, said links should sit in both the lead and in the main geography section. There's no need for either/or here. All clear if we just follow the words of our own guidelines rather than mis-citing them while rushing in to remove rather obvious links that many readers are likely to both expect and make use of, merely because one or two editors don't like them for some reason. I'd also make the observation that none of the several editors on the other side of this debate above have participated in this vote/round-up section yet (or hadn't, until now). N-HH talk/edits 16:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note that while I didn't participate in the debate above, I did read it as it was occurring. I just hadn't made up my mind, due to the fact that both sides have valid arguments. I had no original thoughts to add, and didn't see any reason to post pointless "I agree" or "I disagree" statements. They only clutter up the debate. — Gopher65_talk 17:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• per N-HH, on every point Ubiquinoid (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  Comment Repeat link does not apply to sections that are significantly separated by multiple screen pages, although that has change. Where it should appear, is "at the first occurrence after the lead" (emphasis mine). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there's firm consensus. Tony (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is clearly NO consensus from the discussion to delink the terms from the lead - there are several editors who did not take part in the hardly authoritative poll, for example. Ubiquinoid (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First, it says "please do not modify this". Will you do as it asks, Ubiquinoid? Second, I'd have thought 7 out of 9 was strong consensus. The same two editors can't block such a strong majority view. Tony (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• The comment is justified. First, as the closing admin said the poll is not binding and this is not a majoritarian exercise. Second, you know very well that all editors who partook in the discussion (particularly from among those who prefer the links, and also at the linking page) did not 'vote' in this unauthoritative poll, as opposed to the snowball of opponents, and the latter cannot trump the former; indeed the poll may have been closed early. Please do try to escalate this - the more eyes that see how farcical this is, the better we will be. Ubiquinoid (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've asked CambridgeBayWeather to sort this out. Tony (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • Yes it's a poll and as such it isn't binding but it seems to reflect the consenus. Restarting an edit war rather than discussing seems the wrong way to go. If you think the poll was closed early, no comments in almost three days, then you should have said that. I can't help the fact that someone didn't comment. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You seemingly contend that the above poll, of less than a dozen editors, reflects a consensus resulting from the discussion of this (lengthy) issue? (Can any editor involved honestly assert this?) I am unsure which lens(es) you are using to make that assessment, based on lengthy discussions in a couple spots which really have not ended. If you can't help the fact that some did not comment, your premature closing of the poll and judgement certainly does not help matters. Thanks. Ubiquinoid (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no "consensus" for this, this isn't even the correct forum for discussing it. The issue of linking geographically related countries and features in the lead of a geographical article needs to be addressed as a whole, not piecemeal. The ongoing discussions at the linking guideline demonstrate convincingly that no such consensus exists as well. Plus, there was never consensus for the unilateral removal by OC to begin with, neither here or elsewhere. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus for this. It's above. They are not going unlinked. They are still linked in the geography section, just not in the lede, where it's clearly inappropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Without speaking to the consensus here, I don't think it can be characterized as "clearly inappropriate" when there seems to be considerable precedent, as shown below. Perhaps if all those articles are in violation, then it might still be inappropriate, but I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for thinking otherwise. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted, majority is not the same thing as consensus. And neither a half-hearted vote in which many people did not choose to directly participate - having already expressed their happiness with keeping the links elsewhere - nor random assertions about them being "clearly inappropriate" count for anything. There is clearly not agreement to remove them, by genuine consensus, policy (as properly understood) or precedent. N-HH talk/edits 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Are there going to be anymore people involed here. The outcome looks clear to all but 2 of you. I belive its up to the minority to find support now.Moxy (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The outcome is not clear and (once again) this is not even the appropriate forum. Removing from the lede (and in essence marginalizing) links to neighbouring countries and the continent the article subject is in makes a mockery of the linking system, and no, I don't care to hear the ludicrous "sea of blue" argument yet again. That might have merit if we were linking every word but such cases are few and far between. --Ckatz^chat_spy 15:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok lets be clear on what your saying. You believe this whole conversation and its outcome is invalid - because you think its not the place for the talk right? Your basically telling nine editors after a very long debate that all our opinions are bull shit because the talk is inappropriate in your eyes.. Thus far your argument now is based on nothing but your belief or interpretation of what is a valid talk. So again I ask you how or were do you believe we can solve this problem.Moxy (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not the whole conversation - and that's the point, this "poll" is not the whole conversation. First, there's loads of debate above it on the rest of this page, including support for keeping the links from people who didn't "vote" in the tiny "poll", where about seven people out of Wikipedia's millions of readers, editors and visitors "voted", over a tiny four-day window, in favour of scrubbing some links. Secondly, as Ckatz says, even this talk page as a whole - let alone this tiny subsection of it - is not the correct forum to determine this issue, which goes much wider. Policy and practice is currently pretty explicitly clear that such links should be included, in the lead. There's no clear consensus or mandate for a small group of editors to go round stripping out such links (I've been asking Tony for two years where it is and, funnily enough, the man who talks about tanks and Prague Springs can't show anyone where it is), even if on one or two occasions a couple of other people agree with some of those removals on specific pages. A tiny clique can't reinvent policy and practice on one page, claim their view is right no matter what and then unilaterally declare victory. If people want to change the policy and practice, change it on the policy page and/or run an RFC or whatever. N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Way off as its not a matter of changing policy as there are 2 different interpretations of the same policy. I dont care about opinions of what editors are doing on Wikipedia as a whole - We are talking about this article at this time and what has been talked about here. Thus far both sides point to the same policy, so the argument that policy must change first is BS and simply a cop-out on the part of those on the losing side of the debate here. I was one that wanted to keep the links at first - but after seeing the position of both side I changed my mind. I find it despicable to tell editors to go change the policy even though both see the same policy differently. Easy way to bully people over is to say "your wrong only my view of the policy is right". We have 3 editors telling 7 others there wrong on there interpretation of the policy - this sound right and the way things normally go here??Moxy (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, the guidelines - and precedent, practice and almost certainly casual reader expectation - are quite explicit. Whether some people don't read them, can't understand them, wish they said something else, or deliberately pretend they say the opposite of what they say, isn't my problem. Nor is it an excuse for ignoring them or the basis for claiming that there are genuinely "alternative" interpretations of them And, btw, you woundn't see the sky for the toys belonging to half the editors who happen to currently be on your side of the debate if anyone claimed that a 2-4 day "consensus" of 7-9 local editors concluded that any other part of the MOS suddenly didn't apply to an individual page. N-HH talk/edits 00:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong ...We have one side that is not willing to compromise at all. One side wanted links in lead one side wanted no links at all - so "MOST" involved agreed that linking should still take place just not in the lead. So what policy is not being followed exactly since they are still linked. Why is oneside unwilling to compromise at all and edit war to get there way. So what are we to do? As of now all is linked two times and noone wants an edit war again.Moxy (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anyone who wants no links, in the lead or elsewhere; and no, I do not think there should be "compromise" when it's such a manifestly false one, for all the reasons dragged out above, relating to guidelines, the fact that many readers don't go beyond the lead etc etc. And if you don't know that the guidelines say, please go and read them, again if necessary. And finally, both "sides", as far as I can tell, as ever in such situations, are "edit warring". The cap of the moral high ground rarely fits. N-HH talk/edits 01:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"See this is the problem - the assertion that "I know policy best" or that all are simply to dumb to understand or have not read the policy by now. I would suggest all re-read the arguments above for a better overall non-one-sided view of the interpretation of policy. To say I am unwiling to compromise because I am right with my view and all else are wrong - is simply not conducive to moving things forward. Perhaps we should get others involved by moving this talk to a broader audience. Moxy (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is mostly aimed at those who for years have misleadingly cited policy, or rather guidelines and practice, in pursuit of what they do when it comes to links. I accept that those more marginal to this wider debate may not be so familiar with all that (which is why, in the same way, I urge them to read it properly; WP:CONTEXTLINK and WP:OVERLINK really are quite explicit when read in full, without the not-so-subtle elision one often sees). N-HH talk/edits 01:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok just read them both again - and I simply dont see how something like the worlds largest Oceans is all that relevant in comprehending the overall topic of the country of Canada. The United States looks relevant, but i am no expert a differ to what the majority believe is best for all. I originally said I dont see the harm in them being linked (still believe this) - but I see the argument that its overkill and can be linked in the Main section on the topic. I dont see this going anywhere- THUS I propose we delink them in the geo section since unlinking will always be reverted in the lead. Lets go back to the way it was so we dont have overlinking for no reason. Moxy (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I will iterate my commentary at the MoS page (emphasis added):

As a fairly new editor, I found it odd that the terms of note in the lead -- United States, Atlantic/Pacific/Atlantic oceans ... all proper nouns, no less -- were unlinked. How does it enhance a reader's understanding to have to scoot someway down the page where (illogically, as a few have suggested) a reader may find the 'appropriately placed link' (in the geography section) to click, or make the experience less smooth by prompting them to type the terms out in that instance? I also find there little logic to proposals to link 'United States' yet not the three oceans with which Canada has some 20x as much border with. The country's motto, after all, is 'from sea to sea', interpretations aside. Why place human geography over physical geography? A minority of experienced editors may complain about a sea (or an ocean, or even a lake) of blue, and that is to rightly say that every word need not be linked (like 'country' or 'continent') but this purports to be an encyclopedic wiki -- if you don't want that, stick to paper. And, for those that invoke overlinking, that may apply throughout the rest of the article, but not with regards to the initial instances of these major topics. The guideline is so obtuse that it should be struck.

I will restart a discussion on that page regarding the guideline, since no one (as pointed out here) has demonstrated the origin of consensus for even the inclusion of that guideline. Ubiquinoid (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the tanks are still there aiming their guns at the lead. So the consensus in this poll will continue to be overridden by a few editors who insist on continuing to apply their own view. It's a pity for the readers. Tony (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • At least these tanks have ammo, and not blanks. Prose like 'consensus in this poll' speaks volumes about mindset: consensus cannot be, and has not been, exhibited through this poll (and an incomplete one at that) but through discussion, even after the poll by added commentators. Do you really maintain that? Do you believe that this would survive mediation and arbitration if it escalated, which may be required given the intransigence of a few editors? Thus, can you point us specifically (with links/diffs) to the consensus regarding the guideline at MoS in the first place? Ubiquinoid (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Tanks? Can you drop this analogy too please Tony? As well as your claims to be doing this oh-so-generously "for the readers"? It's a fairly transparent inversion of reality. I and others on this side of the debate are not among the tiny number of editors who blitzkrieg their way through thousands of articles - this one included - unlinking manifestly related and relevant terms that many readers (no, not all, of course not - but no one is magically forced to click on them) will almost certainly find useful in many contexts; on the basis that those editors have unilaterally determined them to constitute "bad" linking, which no reader at all should even have the option to use, according to some invented, often capricious and never-put-to-consensus standard. And yet those who even dare to query that, merely on talk pages, here and elsewhere, are the ones with "tanks" aiming "guns" at people and who are trying to hobble the utility of the site for its readers? Is this meant to be taken seriously? N-HH talk/edits 18:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Prague Spring" and "Tanks" comments verge on accusations of conspiracy theory Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory accusations and violate the Wikipedia principle of civility Wikipedia:Civility please keep discussion respectful and on topic. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

TY. I will refrain from such responsive language hereafter, which was more intended to demonstrate the farcical nature of militant lingo like 'Prague spring' etc. to begin with. Mind you, I am sure Prague is quite pleasant in spring. :) Ubiquinoid (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparative study

I am generally opposed to overlinking. But User:N-HH's point above about the "broader geographical area" got me wondering how articles for other countries handle this matter. From a random sampling of the first countries off the top of my head, possibly influenced by my reading of this morning's newspaper, here are some geographical entities linked in these leads:

• Finland: Links Sweden, Norway, Russia, Gulf of Finland, among others
• Azerbaijan (FA): Links Eurasia, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, among others
• Belize: Links Central America, Mexico, Guatemala, Caribbean Sea, among others
• South Africa: Links Africa, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland, among others. Also links "country", which I am going to de-link right after this...
• Philippines: Links Southeast Asia, Pacific Ocean, Taiwan, Vietnam, Borneo, among others
• Brazil: Links Atlantic Ocean, Venezuela, Guyana, Colombia, Peru, among others
• Indonesia (FA): Links Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, East Timor, among others. Notably, Southeast Asia is not linked.

So when the first seven articles (including two FAs) I checked have abundant geographical linking in the lead, I'm thinking that removing the links to United States, Atlantic Ocean, etc. from this article appears to be contrary to sitewide practice. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis, which seems sound to me. Regarding Indonesia et al, I believe it pertinent to point out that User:OhConfucius recently removed various links (to Southeast Asia, Oceania, etc.) from the lead, haphazardly (e.g., East Timor unlinked, but Malyasia linked). (Said editor proceeded to revert my revert herein minutes ago.) I believe this editor's (and others) actions further overarching concerns regarding this wholesale nonconsensual process, perhaps disruptively, delinking relevant major topics from various article leads. Ubiquinoid (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Indonesia page is probably the correct place for this observation, but I have to say that anyone who unlinks East Timor from the article about Indonesia (and takes out the Southeast Asia link, while, as it happens leaving duplicate links, such as the two to India, and common word/definitional links such as "natural resources") really doesn't know what they're doing, and is doing nothing whatsoever to improve this encyclopedia. More generally, the precedents cited above as a whole demonstrate what common practice is; however, I would also note that people who delink range across hundreds of articles at a rapid pace, so eventually there is no doubt they will chip away at these precedents.(Btw, for info, some like Tony and Colonies Chris appear to use fixed scripts that consistently take out the same links to what they assert to be "well known" terms, seemingly regardless of context; others like OhConfucius appear to rely more on manual cuts while looking at the context, but with utterly unfathomable reasoning quite often as to what they take out and leave behind - see Indonesia/East Timor). N-HH talk/edits 13:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why instead of using scripts to delink without looking at the context, each and every instance should be debated. In the case of Canada, I don't think the ocean links add anything to the lede (not saying they shouldn't be linked later on, it's just not likely that people will go to the Canada article thinking ("I wonder what oceans I can click on?"). In the case of a small island nation, the ocean that surrounds it should absolutely be linked in the lede, because that is the main geographical feature of the area (like Canadian Shield, Tundra, or Prairies in Canada, or Amazon Rain Forest in Brazil). Context matters, and not every national article should have the same things linked in the lede. Delinking without looking at context annoys me, but so does following centralized rules without bothering to examine the specifics of the article in question. Each article is unique, and should be treated that way. Due to the "quick read" nature of a lede, the links used should add to the reader's navigation needs, first and foremost. Overlinking makes navigation difficult, but so does underlinking. — Gopher65_talk 14:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too into overlinking either - and there is plenty of genuinely redundant, repetitive and irrelevant linking on the average page - but the issue is how precisely it is defined and where you draw the line. Obviously relevant and related links surely do not fall under it, either under my - I hope - common-sense interpretation, or under the current guidelines. As ever, I'm sceptical of individal editors or small groups of them making claims about precisely what other readers will - or, even worse, should - be linking to when those pages are manifestly relevant to the topic at hand, however "well known" the secondary topic might be; and yet worse still, having come to that conclusion, effectively blocking that option by removing the link altogether. Who appointed editor X to make that choice? How does having a link on the Canada page, for example, to the rather obviously relevant "North America" or "Atlantic Ocean", confuse people as to what links they might choose to click on? Are we assuming/claiming that the average reader is that stupid that they'll be needlessly distracted by it? A reader who doesn't care can pass along; a reader who does - whether they did when they started on the lead or not - can click, open a new tab alongside the existing one or whatever. It's not rocket science, not that serious, nor a field where we need to save readers from themselves through our own genius and superior judgment. Jesus, let's get over ourselves. N-HH talk/edits 01:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Navigational needs? Are the editors who support this term somehow suggesting that some person would come to this article to locate the articles of these geographic regions? Do you somehow suspect that a read thinks to herself "you know that big body of water to the east of Canada, what was it? Oh! I know, I'll look at the Wikipedia article so I can find out what it is."? Is that what we're expected to think? --18:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Very much so. Canada is a big country, fronting many other geographical entities. It is not unreasonable to assume that readers, perhaps many -- like students and inquiring minds, e.g., -- DO come to articles such as this for concise quick answers to queries, instead of limiting themselves with answers you and similar editors think and choose to spoonfeed them the answers and links for. This argument is getting circular. Ubiquinoid (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, that scenario makes total sense. Given that the user doesn't know the name of the body of water and that the Wikipedia search for "body of water to the east of Canada" returns useless results, why wouldn't they go to the Canada article to try to find it? That seems plainly obvious to me, even without making a statement regarding the appropriateness of geographical links in the lead. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My point was that no native English speaker would come to this article to find a link to those geographic features and your arguments do not convince me. And no one would use wikipedia when they could use Google, Bing or any natural language search engine. Your arguments don't hold water on any of our three coasts nor in our four great lakes (which thankfully are not linked nor even mentioned in the lede). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And your argument is circuitous and repetitive. How do you know what users use an article for? Be reminded (again) that Wikipedia does not cater specifically to native/advanced English speakers, many of whom when searching for an answer to a query will be brought to the Wikipedia article first in search results (given its prevalence), or those only in the know. Your arguments don't hold water, oceanic or otherwise. Ubiquinoid (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My argument is quite reasonable and in line with the guideline and your statement is factually incorrect: English Wikipedia is written with for native English speakers in mind. It's quoted above.

Back to my argument. If someone knew that the ocean they were thinking of was east of Canada, they would not come to the Wikipedia article to look for it. They would ask Google or a search engine. So if we were to cater to your mythical individual who might want to come here to quickly find the associated major geographic areas they should rightly not find it in the lede because if they did we would be rewarding bad search behaviour.

I'm sorry I can't take anything you write seriously any more because you're so blinded to 1) how wikipedia works, 2) how the minds of people work and 3) how computer users think. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre. No one's suggesting that the point of linking such terms is simply to aid those people who might have come to this page solely in order to find a route to entries about other specific things, which were actually their primary objective all along (although, as noted, the scenario suggested is actually entirely plausible). We're also saying that once they're here, there is a possibility that they may also wish to look at the entries on those other things when those other things are clearly related and relevant to the original topic (and yes, for the fortieth time, even if they know at some basic level what that other thing is). In the internet age, we can offer this option easily and for the benefit of the reader rather than requiring them to look it up separately. Is this really that astonishing or incomprehensible a suggestion and does it really suggest blindness on the part of those making it? It's fairly clear who here has an open mind and genuine understanding about the fact that other people might think and do things in a variety of ways, and are prepared to offer the broad range of readers options for that, and who doesn't. N-HH talk/edits 22:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

ps: nor did I realise the role of editors here is to punish - or at least not "reward" - "bad search behaviour". I think I know who I "take seriously" in this conversation ... N-HH talk/edits 23:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what "reader's navigation needs" means then. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, I just did in the main reply above; as have others. Are you actually reading anything here? N-HH talk/edits 14:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You jumped the shark long ago with plodding, verbose, repetitious, even vacuous commentary about notions arguably misconstruing guidelines or advocating limited interpretations of them (the consensus for which is debatable), and I am continuing to discuss this out of necessity to better the lead. But, if you opt to continue condescending, insinuating what my level of knowledge and such is, Dönitz, there is little more to discuss with you. Ubiquinoid (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You can't dismiss my statements. And you are rude for intentionally misspelling my name. You're right about one thing, this discussion is over. I'm apply the correct actions now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

But thanks for suggesting that I'm as cool as Fonzie. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So please explain this navigational foolishness or shall I assume it's just another misdirection and is unsupportable? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Now it's impossible for any other edits to be made to the article (at least until the sysop protection wears off). Isn't this whole dispute now just becoming needlessly destructive? Michaelmas1957 01:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree - please consult the editor who minutes ago precipitously applied what they believe the 'correct actions' are, despite even others who are discussing, and who, incensed, has since proceeded to revert several other similar edits elsewhere. This is arguably disruptive and of a stalking nature. This may need to escalate. Ubiquinoid (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR no matter how right you believe you are edit waring is not conducive to what we expect from our editors.Moxy (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Ubiquinoid. An edit war can't be conducted by one editor. You have no high ground, moral or otherwise. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• That is true, for all involved. Ubiquinoid (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, "reader's navigation needs" is a non-issue and we can remove the links from the lede when the page is unlocked because those who support using this phrase have nothing to support this claim. Perfect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No -- a few editors addressed this above. If this is used as a crutch to delink when no consensus exists to do so -- either here or on the relevant guideline page (as requested of Tony to produce w/ subsequent silence) -- problems will ensue and this will escalate. End thread. Ubiquinoid (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't explained above. You're the one with the crutch when no consensus exists to keep them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Particularly N-HH, OOS, and also I addressed the navigating issue; you fixate, despite everything else written. I am not ending the thread as such. Someone else can feed this (very tortuous) flame. Ubiquinoid (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

But I've clearly shown that it's a fallacy. So sorry that you started the discussion with a fallacious argument. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Where have you "clearly shown" any such thing? Simply asserting your opinion or ignoring any opposing opinion does not automatically render that opposing argument "fallacious". N-HH talk/edits 14:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Above. Are you reading anything here? There's no proof that anyone is coming here to find those links. You have stated an opinion and so I responded with an opposing opinion. No facts on either side so don't assume that your opinion is right because it's yours. However Google is the first choice for finding things like this, not Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, all read - and already responded to in turn (I would provide you with the precise link/diff, but that would of course merely risks rewarding bad linking or reading). You'll also, presumably, have noted that while expressing my opinion and holding quite fast on one or two points (eg about what might be "relevant" by any common standard), I have also shown a fairly open mind about the broader issue and in respect of reader expectations. Indeed, much of my insistence is precisely about ensuring the mass of readers - who are all of course very different and come here for different reasons and with different intentions - have more options and that choices are left up to them, not made by one or two editors who supposedly know better. Cheers. N-HH talk/edits 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What a complete load of cow manure. You have no facts to back your claim and instead of offering them you make that any individual would come here looking for any one of the linked geographic locations in the lede. You can try to plant flowers on your manure, but it doesn't clean the smell up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

But as I've pointed out several times, I am not saying that people generally would come here specifically and primarily to look for said links if that's the main thing they are actually looking for (although some might). Nor do I understand what "facts" you would expect me to have that would prove the rather-obviously-true-in-some-cases claim that some people will, having come here, find a link to related geographic terms helpful (a different point, as noted). And where are your "facts" to prove no one will? As I have discovered here and on the UK page, you have serious comprehension problems and your talk of "manure" - seeminly liberally applied, although there are several separate points in my previous post - is fairly rich coming from someone who's so sensitive about personal attacks elsewhere (and absolves me of the one that I've just made). N-HH talk/edits 21:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The facts would be the click-throughs: How often does the Canada article cause someone's next click to be to one of the disputed links in the lede. AS for my comprehension problems, I think you're sadly mistaken, and I won't speak to your behaviour issues because I'm not willing to deal with WP:NPA issues because of you. As for my facts, I didn't say I had any, however you can look at where people who come to Wikipedia come from (Google in large part) and how long they stay, and what they do here. I'm sorry that I don't have that information, but most people don't spend very long on Wikipedia (by long, I mean click around to many links) and they usually arrive from a search on Google. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm lists the stats, but not the sort of information I'm looking for. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

http://stats.grok.se/en/201205/Canada tell us how often the page was visited but not 1) how people got here and 2) if they clicked away from here or just closed the browser. Good analytics packages will show us that. The reason that this is important is that if even 0.01% of the page visitors click through to one of those sources, we'll know it's common enough to include it in the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article because there has been an unresolved dispute regarding linking of terms. For three weeks these links have been added and removed, and nobody appears willing to change their mind, meaning this will continue indefinitely as far as I can deduce from the contents of this talk page.

Further, the discussions on this talk page about these links is not really suitable here. This belongs on Wikipedia policy and guideline talk pages. Choose one, and take it there. Finally, please change the tone of the discussion - there's no reason to insult each other. Mindmatrix 01:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking resolution

I see that the topic of linking/over-linking has spread to other country articles (as seen here) . I suggest (as stated above) that we move this debate to a more appropriate venue. I am not sure where because its not a content dispute. Anyone have a suggestion ...Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Moxy (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Small Adjustments

Hey guys, I'm new here, so I'm not 100% sure how this all works. (Don't attack me for doing things wrong.)

I noticed in the Culture section of the Canada article, there was an error. "Seven of Canada's eight largest metropolitan areas – Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg – have franchises in the National Hockey League (NHL), and there are more Canadian players in the NHL than from all other countries combined." Actually, all eight of the largest cities have NHL teams: Toronto Maple Leafs, Montreal Canadiens, Vancouver Canucks, Ottawa Senators, Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers, and (the newest team) Winnepeg Jets.

I tried to edit it, but the page is protected. Can an admin fix this up?

Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, the page is protected due to a major dispute over links, which has gone on way too long. If an admin doesn't make the change you want, I'll make it for you when the protection expires. Michaelmas1957 01:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

When does it expire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.19.64 (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

June 15, I think. Michaelmas1957 01:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I could make the edit, but I'm confused: you only list 7 teams, which is what the article already says. What is the eighth? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no mistake, the missing top 8 Metro area is Quebec City which currently has no team in the NHL. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't think I looked closely enough at the suggestion. Current wording stays. Michaelmas1957 04:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

War of 1812 - citation needed

The War of 1812 describes three major theaters of combat:
1. Sea (Alantic), from the American perspective, British naval actions were the casus belli
2. Northern/North-western fronter (Maine, Michigan, the Great Lakes, upper Mississippi valley, and Canada)
3. Southern states (including invasion of Virginia, burning of Washington, the siege of Baltamore, Creek War, battle of New Orleans, fighting near St. Louis)
So yeah, Canada was certainly a front in the war, but saying "The Canadas were the main front in the War of 1812 between the United States and Britain." needs a citation. 68.105.46.68 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the Canadas were a major point of the war of 1812, so it stands to reason they were the main front. There were battles elsewhere, but the Canadian/US border saw the largest troop movements. Canterbury Tail talk 21:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the whole *point* of the war from the American perspective was to capture parts of the British colonies Upper and Lower Canada (today those areas are included in Ontario and Quebec). (EDIT: Anon IP: I formatted your comment slightly by placing line breaks so that your numbers showed up properly. I hope you don't mind. Also, geez, signbot works to fast:P. It was like half a minute after my comment that I tried to sign, and it had already done it.) — Gopher65_talk 03:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The border between the United States and the Canadian colonies was the only land border between the US and the British Empire. It covered the largest area and had the most troops engaged on it of any of the fronts of the war, and it was the only front in continuous contention for the entire war. If that doesn't make it the main front then I don't know what would. Mediatech492 (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with anon that it should be referenced, but the anon is wrong that Washing DC should be considered a southern state. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Audio file needed

Someone who knows how to should add the national anthem O Canada clickable to be played. See for example page on Vietnam, has clickable playable anthem. Canada page should have this, but I don't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.180.150 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no agreement to include it on this page. However, it can be found at O Canada. CMD (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New OECD Data About Canada

I know the link wasn't working the first time, but here is some useful and detailed information about Canada. (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/canada/) --Zurkhardo (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Delinking history sections

Was looking at a few other articles like this one that are FA and noticed that this article looks overlinked and thus cluttered. In the history section we have History of Canada linked as a header then we link all the sub article from History of Canada like - History of Canada (1945–1960), (1960–1981), (1982–1992), and (1992–present)... Do we need to link all these since they have there own section in the main article that as I said is linked at the top. Many FA country articles simply have the one main link rather then all the sub links. I think one link is enough and would allow us to condense the history section. What do others think? Moxy (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The more concise it is, the more likely the reader will reamin engaged! Anyone looking for more detail would no doubt go go the main article. CMD (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine. As long as their is a link to the main History of Canada article, I'm happy. Really that's all that's needed. Most general readers who want to know more about a specific event in Canadian history probably don't know enough to know what group of decades it took place in anyway:P. — Gopher65_talk 14:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yellow Gini index text hard to read

The yellow '(medium)' after the Gini index is rather hard to read and harsh on the eyes on the default white Wikipedia background. Perhaps a slightly darker yellow could be used? Is there a standard to follow? - Yougottaeat 05:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's against WCAG (accessibility) guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Can we change that without a massive debate, or is this, as the OP asks, a standardized thing that we need to change in some centralized location. — Gopher65_talk 14:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that both Ukraine and Romania use the same formatting. I am not sure how many other countries also use it. - Yougottaeat 04:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Please someone improve this article.

Please someone improve this article. Try to use: Canada has very high life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living and income equality, and it ranks high among developed nations in terms of education, health, quality of life and economic dynamism. The International Monetary Fund classified Canada as a developed economy, and the World Bank identified it as a high income economy. Canada is a member of the United Nations, NATO, and the World Trade Organization. The service sector dominates Canada's economy, followed by the industrial sector and agriculture. Tourism is a significant source of revenue. Canada provides a universal health care system and free primary education, while supporting culture through numerous public institutions and through corporate investments in media and publishing. The nation prides itself in its cultural, artistic and scientific contributions to the world, as well as in its cuisine, beers and sporting achievements. --189.104.31.149 (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This article makes it quite clear that Canada is one of the world's wealthiest and most developed countries, highlights its cultural and commercial prowess, and describes the scale and diversity of its geography. However, it is meant to be an encyclopedic summary, not a tourist guide, and thus must remain as neutral as possible. Michaelmas1957 23:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I get it. Thanks anyway.--189.104.31.149 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Culture has its own section. If there something that you would like to see added or some way in which it could be improved, please let us know. The section on demographics mentions education, but does not mention that it is publicly funded until the end of secondary. This is common in Western nations but uncommon for African and some Asian nations and it would be good to mention. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Culture section

In the Culture section, the second and third sentences(see below) seem misleading or not enough precise.

In Quebec, cultural identity is strong, and many French-speaking commentators speak of a culture of Quebec that is distinct from English Canadian culture.[201] However, as a whole, Canada is in theory a cultural mosaic – a collection of several regional, aboriginal, and ethnic subcultures.[202]

The second sentence starts with "However". "However" means that your going to say something that is opposite, or doesn't agrees with what the first sentence said. But then, the second sentence says that Canada is a cultural mosaic. This doesn't contradict the first sentence at all. It's hard, for the reader, to understand why the existence of a cultural mosaic excludes the existence of Quebec culture, or the fact that Quebec culture is distinct from English Canadian culture. The two sentences are simply not logical, and make the article a little less fluids.

These two sentences talk about a highly debated subject in Canada. Because of the second sentence, the article clearly takes one side in the debate. The 2nd sentence should, like the first, says that other commentators or persons have a different opinion. A third sentence may even be added to mention that there is a debate around that question. This would explain to the reader why the article doesn't conclude in this subject, choose one side. --Snorkyller (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be worded better but the article simply states the fact about policy...for more info and to see criticism of the topic there is a link to the main article that talks all about this (seeMulticulturalism in Canada. No need to show the debate here...just the facts about policy. The first sentence is about how Canada for most of its early history was divided into two groups English and French. The second one explains that despite the fact that people describe the country in terms of English and French that in fact the country is a mosaic of sub culture beyond just English and French. As for the debate part of things - The facts are that Multiculturalism is official policy of the country. That said as seen in the linked article; within Canada most critics of the concept are seen as very right wing, thus are generally demised. Thats not to say its not tlaked about but its not a mainstream debate - its seen as a distinctly Canadian work-in-progress. See :Linda Ann White (2008). The Comparative Turn in Canadian Political Science. UBC Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-7748-1427-0. and Multiculturalism in Canada debated - CBC video archives (Sept. 14, 2004 - 42:35 min) for more info.Moxy (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder

I wonder why this article does not extols the qualities of Canada, while articles from other countries do. Look for articles on Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Holland, Iceland ... The Canada is an amazing country and deserves much more than that.--189.104.31.149 (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It wouldn't hurt to note, albeit academically and briefly, that Canada ranks high in human development and other metrics. The Australia intro offers a pretty good example (and it's a featured article). Thoughts? --Zurkhardo (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Linking in the lead paragraph

Nikkimaria has repeatedly removed valid links to the articles Arctic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean from the lead paragraph. A discussion about this matter two months ago did not lead to a consensus to remove the links. In fact, the point was made that such a decision is more properly resolved at the linking guideline, where discussions did not support such changes. It is also important to note that these edits are out of line with established practice on virtually all country articles. I would ask that Nikki avoid repeatedly removing the links in the absence of a broad consensus to make such a change to country-related articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

They're not valid as it is unlikely that any reader is coming to the article to find out where these bodies of water are located. There is no broad consensus to link them either. It is contentious to link them and it's contentious to remove the links as well. I would ask that you back down as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support linking them as it only adds the the article. Most people may not click on the link, but some may. It's worth keeping them linked. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the links. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At the previous discussion here, there was a fairly clear consensus, particularly once you exclude the block-evading sockpuppet, that these links are better suited to the "Geography" section of the article than to the lead. If you have any new arguments that might change opinions about the matter, feel free to make them, but right now you're not. The linking guideline provides broad directives, but it is up to the editors at an individual article to decide how to apply these directives - it would be ridiculous for the guideline to try to cover every single possible linking situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That was not the outcome, as a reading of the conversations will indicate. Furthermore, established practice at most (if not all) country articles supports the links. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that most country articles link to things they shouldn't is no reason for us to do so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ckatz, I both read and participated in the conversations I linked. I'm aware that there were comments made that support your POV here, but I also know that there were more supporting mine. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Audio request for O Canada

Just a request that we should try to track down an audio track to embed the national anthem as is done on United States and India.Krazytea(talk) 01:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note previous discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Krazytea(talk) 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC notice

There is a Request for comment about the question does a largest cities template/city population template add value to the articles about nations (esp. featured ones)? This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Flag

i think there should be an article about the meaning of the flag. like how the American flag represents the 13 colonies and the united states, to the best of my knowledge the leaf represents Canada and the red borders represent the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (they would have been blue, the colour of the oceans, but Canada had a Liberal prime minister at the time and they didn't want to put blue on the flag because blue represents the conservative government. note: i heard this was true and i thought it was but i tried to source it but after a couple minutes of searching i couldn't find any articles backing it up. if someone could source this i would appreciate it note2: there would be much more to this article than i put down so expanding on this would be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88Fuhrer (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

See Flag of Canada.Moxy (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As the article Moxy linked states, the fact that the Canadian flag is red has nothing to do with Liberals vs Conservatives, but has to do with the fact that red and white are Canada's official colours:P. Man. People politicize everything. — Gopher65_talk 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Canadian lakes.

In the text, it says canada has something like about 40,000 lakes. Finland has almost 200,000, of which 60,000 are large. It claims Canada has more lakes than any other country in the world. Fix this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE91:C9B0:7C6E:C81C:43CC:46AB (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no official count of the number of lakes in Canada, I have found some sources that say over 3,000,000. Ontario claims to have over 250,000 lakes, Manitoba refers to itself as "the land of 100,000 lakes", etc. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this has been discussed before. There is no solid definition of the word "lake" or "pond". Finland counts puddles as lakes. If Canada did that, it would have somewhere between 3 and 10 MILLION lakes, not a piddly little 200,000 puddles. IIRC from last time, Canada has more fresh water surface area than the whole of Finland. — Gopher65_talk 14:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Relevance

Usually when a group is not relevant, the census simply lists them as "other" and refuses to name them. In this case, this government derived census explicitly mentions these groups. There are other smaller groups who were not mentioned and those ARE irrelevant. But in this case i surely disagree. We do not get to decide who is relevant and who's not. Reliable sources do that. Pass a Method talk 07:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Are we to list every single religion and ethnicity in the country just so we don't "leave someone out" ? If readers want to see a more detailed list the link to the Demographics of Canada article is already provided. UrbanNerd (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with UrbanNerd's response. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup I was thinking the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree not needed..has been reverted as per this talk.Moxy (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that "Gnostic" was listed twice. The first with a cap, the second without. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 October 2012

My request is that the name of the page be changed from just Canada to its proper name, that being Dominion Of Canada, much like Australia is actually the Commonwealth of Australia.

I would appreciate this as it will also better bring to light Canada's past.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.11.92 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The name of the Australia page is "Australia". The name in its infobox is "Commonwealth of Australia". However, the nation of Canada itself has not been the Dominion of Canada since 1982, when its constitution was created. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Energy Usage

Shouldn't mention be made somewhere that Canada's per capita electricity usage is third highest in the world, about 400 watts/person higher than America's? Second and first are Norway and Iceland, respectively. 8.3 metric tons oil equivalent of energy per year, compared to 7.8 for the US. Furthermore, and perhaps even more surprising, a greater percentage of Canadian electricity generation comes from fossil fuels than the United States'.

I use the US as comparison not to justify American energy consumption but precisely because virtually everyone agrees that US energy consumption is obscene.

Obviously it would violate Wikipedia's rules on POV to criticize Canadian energy policy; even more so since I could only find one article in an obscure industry publication talking about the problem. But can we at least mention this? Stating the facts as they are isn't inherently pov. Quodfui (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Colder countries tend to use more energy (and electricity) per capita than medium countries like the US and most of Europe, which both have comparatively mild weather (not to hot, not too cold). Warmer countries would also tend to use more power to a certain degree... or they would if any warm countries were reasonably developed. This isn't an excuse for Canada's unusually high energy usage, just an explanation as to why Canada's energy use is higher than that of the US, despite similar cultures. — Gopher65_talk 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Climate is certainly a factor, as is size. With a small population and a large area, transportation in Canada is significantly more complicated than for other countries of comparable population. On average Canadians have to cover more distance to get themselves and their products to each other than Americans do. Transportation requires infrastructure and infrastructure must be maintained, all of which requires expenditure of energy. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Add anthem OGG in infobox

Pages of other countries already include the OGG version of their national anthems in their infoboxes. Can the same please be done for Canada's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonic2020 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need for it. This is a summary article. Detail about the national anthem, including what it sounds like, is available at O Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We've agree to keep the US version out as it has an unconventional series of harmonies. Some countries include their national anthems, but not all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nations have provinces, countries have geography

A small but worthy thing...Canada is a North American nation consisting of ten provinces, etc., and it is a country occupying the northern part of North America. That Canada has ten provinces, etc., is a fact that accrues to Canada's (politico-legal) identity as a nation, while the fact that Canada is in northern North America accrues to Canada's (geographic) identity as a country (and the word "territory" also having either a politico-legal or geographic meaning, depending on the context in which the term is used). --Paul63243 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In most cases, country and nation are interchangeable, and on wikipedia nation focuses on the people, rather than the territory they are in. The provinces of Canada are also based in geography. CMD (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no generally agreed upon definition of the words "country", "(sovereign) state", or "nation". It makes me cringe just as much as it does you, but people use those words in so many contexts that all specific meaning has been lost, leaving only the generic "kinda socially cohesive place where people live with a distinct foreign policy" definition intact.

The following is both an example and a partial explanation as to why those words aren't used in a specific context anymore:

China is usually considered a state. Canada is as well. Is the EU a state?

1) The EU isn't fully socially cohesive, but neither is China (Tibet, Xinjiang), Canada (Quebec, Alberta), or even the "United" States (Texas hates California and vise versa).

2) The EU is pretty much geographically bound. Does that make it a state? Denmark isn't bound (most of the country's area is outside the country proper), yet it is considered a state. India and Pakistan are culturally and geographically close enough to have at one time been a single state, but they aren't anymore. So geographical vicinity can't have much to do with it.

3) You might answer that the EU isn't a state because it lacks a powerful central government. How much power the central government of the EU has is debatable, but let's just assume that it is subservient to its member states.

In China, the central government in Beijing has laughably little power in most of the country. Most of the country is run by local warlords (sorry, "party officials") who pay only the loosest lip service to the central government. Beijing can't even manage to get the regional governments to enact basic environmental laws that it views as vital to the success of certain export industries important to economic growth. Virtually powerless, except when it comes to foreign relations.

In Canada, the provincial governments have more resources to work with than the federal government. They directly collect more in tax revenue, and indirectly collect the vast majority of tax revenue once you factor in equalization payments, healthcare transfers, and education transfers, among other, smaller programs. Not only that, but the provincial governments can reject federal legislation and even the Canadian constitution if they so desire. In many ways the individual provinces in Canada have as much - or even more - power and independence as the "nations" or "states" of the EU. The exception to this is foreign policy.

So what is the difference between state and not a state? Country and not a country? Nation and not a nation? No one knows, because the new era of continental nations (Russia, China, the US, Canada, Australia, and Brazil) has messed up the geography based definitions. Weak central governments (EU, China, Canada) have messed up governance based definitions. Loose cultural alliances like the Commonwealth have messed up cultural definitions. The fact that there are multinational corporations with more wealth and power than all but the richest, most powerful countries has messed up the definitions based on "he who has the gold" and "with power, comes responsibility".

In short, there are no longer specific definitions of those words because the world has evolved to the point where the old definitions no longer make sense, and we haven't invented replacement words yet.

In fact, the only definition to the words "country", "nation", and "sovereign state" that anyone can agree on is what I hinted at above: control over foreign policy. A country/state/nation is only considered to be such if it has control over its foreign policy, and all the things that implies (border control, sovereign territory, etc). So from that conclusion we go back to my original statement: the definition is of a the words country, nation, and state is a "kinda socially cohesive place where people live with a distinct foreign policy". — Gopher65_talk 20:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a few errors regarding the previously noted information. All tax is collected by the Canadian Tax Revenue Agency (which changes name as leading parties change) then the federal government takes part of provincial taxation for itself which it then spreads to the provinces by a variety of means. There is also the note that dictates that provinces do not have to follow federal mandates, laws, or the Canadian Constitution. Except for Quebec (which never ratified it's joining of Canada and has always existed in a quasi-legal state with the country as a result) all provinces and territories must submit to the will of the Canadian Superior Court and the Federal government. 99.249.237.23 (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Quebec never joined Canada? Quebec is one of the original provinces of Canada. As for the rest of this, virtually none of what you have written is true. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Virtually" none of the IP's comments are true? More like absolutely none of the IP's comments are true. Singularity42 (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I was being charitable.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Worlds longest land border ?

Clearly false statement and, besides, source says nothing about it. Shame to see it on a second sentence of an article. Canadian nationalists ? Check out how long is land borders of Russia and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Submixster (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Between the Russia China border is another country, Mongolia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

DK Publishing (17 May 2010). Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia. Penguin. p. 546. ISBN 978-0-7566-7254-6..Moxy (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Russian and China only share 3,645 km. India and Bangladesh share a longer border (4,053 km) than Russian and China do. The Canada and the US is 8,893 km on land: 6,416 km via the contiguous 48 states and an additional 2,477 km via Alaska. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I explaine: this is trivia, because Canada has land border only with US. It should be either "worlds longest common land border", or "worlds longest land border between two states", not general statement "worlds longest land border". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Submixster (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

By definition a "border" is the line between two states, to say "border between two states" is a redundancy. If a state has border lines with more than one other state you would have to use the plural "Borders". At no point is any Chinese "border" longer than the Canada-Us border, regardless of the overall length of its "borders". So the Canada-US claim to the longest "border" is accurate. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a word on the change in Canadian political outlook?

There is no mention here of the Reform Parties popularity in Canada and their subsequent role in forming the new conservatives. The whole point of the Reform party was opposition to multiculturalism, mass immigration, pro-Canadian identity and heritage. They were extremely popular though they were at the time branded by the Canadian Tories/others as racists etc. - smear tactics - they defied the pollsters and the voters flocked to them in droves and they won the general election. The Tories were eliminated from political life for several years until the real conservatives amongst them joined Reform to form a new Conservative Party - the same one that leads Canada today. This is highly significant and flies in the face of the lovley dovely "all Canadians love multiculturalism" line in this article. How about some coverage of Modern Conservative Canada? This article reads like it was frozen in the mid 2000's. 87.114.191.74 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is original research. The electorate may have well voted based on wedge politics, which is likely a better explanation for the current government (paired with Liberal Party incompetence in the past 5-10 years). Stating that Canadians support a vision promulgated by any party is ridiculous, as no federal party in Canada has received more than about 40% of the popular vote during an election in a long time. The article makes no statements to the effect "all Canadians love multiculturalism"; it does state "Many Canadians value multiculturalism and see Canada as being inherently multicultural", with a source, as well as stating that policies promoting multiculturalism are constitutionally protected, also sourced. Do you have a (preferably peer-reviewed academic) source for your claims? Mindmatrix 21:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Image of National Flag

The colour of the flag in the box at the top seems off compared to flags I can see outside my window. The colour specifications are published. Torontonian1 (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty similar to the online version used by the GoC on that flag page that you linked. Definitely different than what you see on the real life flags though. — Gopher65_talk 00:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite true. The original (1965) colour of the flag is a deeper red than that. Torontonian1 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not the correct location for the discussion since it's only included here. The correct location would be File talk:Flag of Canada.svg. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the commons talk page there are different guidelines if the flag image is going to be printed out (presumably to make it easier on printers?). The colour of this flag is correct under those guidelines. — Gopher65_talk 12:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Dated Immigration Information in Demographics Section

It reads as follows:

"Canada has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates in the world,[186] driven by economic policy and family reunification, and is aiming for between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents in 2012,[187] a similar number of immigrants as in recent years."

Do we have any updates as to whether that goal was met?--Zurkhardo (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know this data hasn't been released yet. If last year's datais anything to go by, we should start seeing preliminary data in early March. Giantdeathrobot (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The number of about 250,000 has been the norm since the mid 1990s - it wont change much. Canada – Permanent residents by gender and category, 1987 to 2011 Moxy (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Graph of Canada's Exports

I think it's a simple way of breaking-down Canada's economic production. Take a look and judge for yourselves: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/explore/tree_map/net_export/can/all/show/2010/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurkhardo (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting but not simple nor easy to understand. Pie charts are the standard for this sort of representation and this isn't a pie chart. The same could be done with a pie chart. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the issue of clarity is the issue of copyright. This clearly is not public domain material. Mediatech492 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It uses a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. We could use if if it made sense to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I've seen it used elsewhere for several other articles on nations, but I suppose that alone isn't a sufficient metric. --Zurkhardo (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Geography it says "but can drop below −40 °C (−40 °F)." I'm not a master at conversions but that's not right, is it?208.61.35.66 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As the saying goes, GIYF (Google is your friend). Google temperature conversion and put the value into the page that returns. In short though, yes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Second paragraph

There is an historical error here if we write "British" as first expeditions explored and settled beside the French. We should talk about the first canadian city founded in 1608 by Samuel de Champlain, then Montreal city as the foundation of Canada.

"The land that is now Canada has been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French colonial expeditions explored, and later settled, the region's Atlantic coast." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesaintseimon (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

mistake in motto

The motto is "From coast to coast." not "From sea to sea." If the edditor could just fix that mistake it would be great.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History canada22 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the motto is correct. It's an English translation of the Latin phrase: A Mari Usque Ad Mare.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Canada's common border with the United States is the world's longest land border??

Surely Russia's southern border with China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan is the world's longest land border. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the article is referring to the world's longest land border between two countries, and it is true that Canada and the US share that record. Russia's border with Kazakhstan is about 2,000km shorter. If you're referring to total length of land border, then the country with the longest land border without regard to neighboring country is China. See our list of countries and territories by land borders for more. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Canada is no more world's second-largest country with oil reserves

That is no longer true, as proven in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country . Canada is now third in that regard. As the article is semi-protected and I do not possess a wikipedia account, I ask thee to edit the article and fix that. Unless there is a mistake in the Oil reserves article, in which case I am sorry for bothering. 81.219.254.124 (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you for the info. Moxy (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor formatting change

The last two curly brackets in this line should be removed: |accessdate=May 5, 2024}}

Canada is a Monarchy, not a federal state

Canada is a monarchical state not a federal state, federal government does exist but not a federal state, it is a monarichal state, founded on principles of westminister democracy, executive power is vested in the monarch not the federal government. The federal government only derives powers from the monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.127.196 (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term "federal state" (which is specifically linked to in the article). A federal state is one that is a federation of smaller political entities into a larger political entity, while those smaller entities still keep a degree of autonomy and self-government. In the case of Canada, the country is a state that was formed by the federation of the provinces, which still have constitutionally recognized self-government in certain areas. (Another example would be the Unitied States, which was formed by the federation of the thirteen colonies.) Federalism was specifically recognized as an unwritten principle of the Canadian constitution by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Secession of Quebec. You can still have a federal state with a monarch as the de jure head of state. Singularity42 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is correct, while the monarch is head of state in Canada the position only ceremonial and plays no role at all in the government administration. To be a monarchical state the monarch would have to have an active and deciding role in government. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's nonsense. A "monarchial state" is a state with a monarch, period. Don't make up your own definitions. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Who are you? I just looked, you're from the EU.....Canada defines itself as a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. Your view is both original research and POV. Don't make up your own definitions, indeed. WP:MOSFOLLOW. You're not a source.Skookum1 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliament (as is the UK, Australia, NZ, etc.) and could also accurately be described as a parliamentary democracy, or as following the Westminster system. I'm a political scientists and I've never heard the term monarchical state (it's simply monarchy). Canada is also federal in structure, as is Australia, the U.S., etc. As described above this is due to the sub-national units of provinces (or states, as elsewhere). The term 'federal' has to do with the organisation of the state and its units, and not to do with the relative power of the monarch, if there is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.219.37 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, "federal state" and "monarchy" are not in contradiction with each other. It is possible for a country to be both things simultaneously, as they refer to two different aspects of governance that are not mutually exclusive to each other. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

French and Indian War

May I ask why "French and Indian War" is used in the lead-in? Canadians do not use that term for the war, it is purely an Americanism, and it does nothing to further describe the war beyond what "Seven Years' War" does. I'd like to see it removed. Celynn (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because someone "bypassed redirect" on the original wording; a good case in point why that should not be a hard-and-fast "rule across the board.Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

French colony in Newfoundland

I'm trying to figure out "how" to include around this line "The English established additional colonies in Cupids and Ferryland, Newfoundland, beginning in 1610" mention of the French colony; Placentia, Newfoundland and Labrador was made the capital in 1655, by the name Plaisance, and Fort Royal established there in 1687. I've reviewed the Newfoundland (island) article to see what date the French colony was founded/declared, but can't find it; it may be better to find that date/claim though Placentia should be mentioned, as also the removal of French colonists to Cape Breton to build Louisbourg after the Treaty of Utrecht surrendered Newfoundland completely to the British.Skookum1 (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

the curious things you find out when reading such articles; King William IV, before he was king, lived in Placentia and it was where he served as judge during his time in the colony....I imagine there were pretty good parties, as is traditionally the case in Newfoundland, which is probably one reason he liked the place so much, given the way he was.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Canadian French and English

The article currently previously includes the line, "Canada's two official languages are Canadian English and Canadian French. Official bilingualism is defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Languages Act." However, the OLA article only mentions English and French, without the adjective "Canadian." Similarly, the OLA itself only specifies French and English,

Shouldn't it read the "official languages are English and French." Canadian English and Canadian French are closer to important variations or dialects; they aren't really distinct languages. Even if they were, the actual law doesn't distinguish. 75.37.23.72 (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed for precisely the reasons you state, but I know that this can be a contentious topic so I'm interested to hear what others say. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is it unnecessarily over-specific, and demonstrably inaccurate. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

English, as also with French, is an official language, but English speakers in Canada include many people who speak other varieties of English as well; they're still speaking the official language. Indian, Australasian, HK, American and English as a second language speakers are all speaking the official language; Canadian English is not mandated as such by law or constitution, other than in official style guides re spelling/lexicon etc.Skookum1 (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013

The literacy rate in Canada is significantly lower than 99%. Literacy in Canada is measured on a scale of 1 to 5, with 3 being the level required to function well in Canadian society. The information obtained from the CIA's website is over-simplified and inaccurate, and the data suggests that 99% is assumed for many first world countries. The best source for this data in Canada is the government agency Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, cited below. Further study suggests that the CIA data should not be relied on for any country. Please make the following adjustment to clarify how Canada rates its own literacy.

Original text: The mandatory school age ranges between 5–7 to 16–18 years,[196] contributing to an adult literacy rate of 99 percent.[84]

New text: The compulsory school age ranges by province or territory between 5–7 to 16–18 years.[196] Literacy is measured on a scale of 1-5, and a person should have at least level 3 to function well in Canadian society. As of 2003, 52% of Canadians aged 16-65 have a literacy rate of 3 or above. Literacy rates are higher for English-speaking Canadians than French-speaking. In rural areas, aboriginal literacy rates are significantly lower than non-Aboriginals.[cite1] Statistics on adult numeracy are lower, with only 45% at level 3 or above.[cite2]

Works cited: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Learning: Adult Literacy http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=31 Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Learning: Adult Numeracy http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=79 Revnoah (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Literacy is simply the ability to read and write coherently. Whether one has a high or low "literacy level" is irrelevant for this basic benchmark. One does not need to be able to read Shakespeare or write a doctoral thesis to be considered literate. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No guess work...no adding numbers up - and to be honest most western nations have this percentage since the cold war - it is the norm to say any level is counted. -- Moxy (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• United States. Bureau of the Census; International Statistical Programs Center (U.S.) (1983). World population. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. p. 429. Literacy is almost universal in Northern America, Europe, and the Soviet Union, with a majority of the countries having literacy rates around 99 percent.
• Anthony DePalma (2001). Here: A Biography of the New American Continent. PublicAffairs. p. 235. ISBN 978-1-891620-83-6. Canadians had a life expectancy of 79.1 years, an adult literacy rate of 99 percent.
• Irving Epstein; Leslie J. Limage (2008). The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Children's Issues Worldwide. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-313-33617-1. Literacy rate: 99 percent as of 2003

Request input

Rather than canvasing individuals, I'll throw a wide net and request comment on the WP:OVERLINK guideline at Talk:O Canada#overlink in lede. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As indicated there, the argument is completely countered by WP:UNDERLINK, as the country of note is a most "relevant connection to the subject" ... and particularly since the country's name is integral to the anthem name. There is also no other apparent link to 'Canada' in the article, let alone in the lead, so the WPOVERLINK position is rather confused and contradictory. 70.54.134.84 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Walter was asking for people to comment at Talk:O Canada#overlink in lede, not here. Singularity42 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Well, isn't this a surprise. Without any notice to anyone who edits articles on which the image was used (including this one), a discussion apparently took place on deleting the image File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg. Only 10 people participated, the majority were against deletion, one person proposed keeping and using only on Arms of Canada (itself opposed by two editors) and it was closed as though that last suggestion was the consensus. Now this article has no representation of the country's coat of arms in the infobox. (Similarly, the monarch's arms are no longer represented in the infobox of Monarchy of Canada.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to list dissent on the Noticeboard, where this is currently being discussed. I share your dismay. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Third the question of this move. Krazytea(talk) 21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fry is right. This is being discussed at WP:ANI#After closing a contentious FFD discussion, I was reverted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "files for deletion" discussion was here (now closed), and the deletion review is here (still open). Both of these links may help explain what happened, and feel free to weigh in at the deletion review if you like. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

MIESIANIACAL, why note petition HM in right of Canada for permission to use the coat of arms? Alternatively, we could post the UK coat of arms and say it was the Canadian coat of arms until 1921 and describe the minor changes that have been made to it since. TFD (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the solution just to use a rasterized version or other derivative? Krazytea(talk) 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the same copyright issues would apply. TFD (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Then I am a bit confused as to why the Canadian Coat of Arms is the only one suffering from this issue. Krazytea(talk) 22:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not. There are currently a couple dozen under discussion at WP:FFD, and many more that will probably be listed once these are resolved. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Threatening editors

I simply dont think we need to go out of our way to threaten editors. All we need to do is inform and link to a talk on the matter. As far as I can tell there is no 1-revert rule applied so really the norm applies - that is dont edit war. I have removed the threat as we are trying to build a collaborative environment for editing. -- Moxy (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It said "repeatedly"; 1RR was never implied. I had inserted a warning ("threat" is really not the right word) because multiple editors had reinserted a non-free image against a FFD conclusion. If this turns out to no longer be an issue, I'll be delighted. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you left the link to the FFD discussion, but simply removed the "can be blocked" line. No objections. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Culture section and strict gun control

Regarding Section 7 titled "Culture" I do not understand why "strict gun control" is listed and considered a Canadian cultural value? I was quite surprised to see it listed. There is no evidence I am aware that supports this as a fact. Canada has had a long history of being involved in Olympic Shooting Sports and a massive hunting culture that plays a significant part in the tourism industry. I would also add that recent history also shows the opposite with the repeal of the Federal Long Gun Registry. Regardless of anyone's feelings towards the gun control debate, these facts and do not support the statement that Canada has a 'gun control' value.

I strongly suggest this pseudo value be removed from Canada's culture as Wikipedia should not be used as a place to promote personal political views that have no factual evidence outside of personal political agendas.

JackCommons (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)— JackCommons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Canada has a gun control system that is much more strong and strict than the Americans and this is what the source is referring to. But that said the "reference" used in the article cant be seen by all... so will give some more below that explain this position. I personally have no problem with its removal...but others have argued it is a main social different between US and Canada - that results in Canada's low crime rate. Will let other chime in here...pls all read the sources below.Moxy (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Norman L. Lunger (2002). Big Bang: The Loud Debate Over Gun Control. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-7613-2260-3. U.S. gun-rights activists found it hard to understand Canadians' acquiescence to such far-reaching gun controls. ... To many Canadians, the nation's strict gun controls are a prime reason why gun murders are rare in Canada
• Gary Kleck (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Transaction Publishers. p. 360. ISBN 978-0-202-36941-9. As in Great Britain, after Canada implemented its more stringent gun controls, its homicide rate advantage over the United ... therefore cannot conclude from such simple cross-national comparisons that stricter gun controls reduced violence
• Gregg Lee Carter Ph.D. (2012). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. p. 250. ISBN 978-0-313-38671-8. Historically, Canada has had stricter gun control legislation than the United States, as well as lower rates of criminal violence and a higher suicide rate
• Jack Reynolds (2003). A People Armed and Free: The Truth About the Second Amendment. AuthorHouse. p. 233. ISBN 978-1-4107-4545-3. They point to other countries, such as Canada and Japan, that have strict gun control laws and much lower rates of shootings, asserting that gun control therefore must work to reduce violence
• Constance Emerson Crooker (2003). Gun Control and Gun Rights. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-313-32174-0. Gun control proponents often point out that countries such as Great Britain and Canada, which have strong gun control laws also have lower rates of violent crime.

I think Moxy is right here, and the cites to RS support him. In recent years I have lived just south of the border and have been struck by the difference in attitudes toward guns. In the US it's much more than hunting, it's a strong sense that gun ownership is long-term security against a runaway oppressive gov't -- an idea strong here in Montana that seems to be absent in BC, Alberta, Sask & Manitoba. Rjensen (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And it is, in fact, one of the most citable things in any comparison of US and Canadian culture and attitudes.....one of the most marked differences, in fact, along with the attitudes towards universal health care. It figures prominently in history, as re the Americans in the BC and Klondike Gold Rushes not being able to sport handguns like they do on US soil, e.g. Sgt Steele's gatling gun at the summit of t he White Pass, where they were disarmed, and Gov Douglas' various edicts in colonial BC.....not just culture and intrinsic to identity, but so deeply ingrained in policy that any suggestion it's not Canadian culture is....well, I can't use an expletive; the user who posted that is a three-edit SPA.Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This conversation appears to have shifted to the topic of how Canada compares to the United States. However, the section in question is describing Canadian culture, not comparing it. While one could claim there are currently gun control advocates in urban areas (Basically Montreal and Toronto), it would also be true to state that rural areas and the rest of Canada do not share the same view. As I previously stated Canada has a long history of being involved in hunting and shooting sports. Of course, in some ways even this is besides the point, as is Rjensen' mention of the American's fear of tyranny. 'Use' is not the topic of discussion anymore than 'comparisons' are. We are simply discussing a nation's view on 'control' of an item. It may or may not surprise some here, but Canada had very few restrictions before the Liberal government created the current Firearms Act. Canadians were able to freely use handguns and fully automatic rifles without restriction. Of course, history is easily forgotten. If we are to give an objective description of Canadian culture I strongly feel it should be representative of the whole country, not of political issues in certain areas. Therefore, I still maintain 'gun control' as a value should be removed as I do not see it as a value that can be proven to be shared by all Canadians. The other values listed: Publicly funded health care, higher taxation to redistribute wealth, the outlawing of capital punishment, and strong efforts to eliminate poverty have a long and consistent history in Canada. The legalization of same-sex marriage is new, but has shown widespread acceptance. 'Gun Control' in Canada only became an issue in the 70's and has been a controversial issue ever since. When one considers the continuous amnesties, modifications, and repeals it is clear gun control is not something Canadians have come close to agreeing on. Political issue? Most definitely. Cultural value? No. Unless you have an agenda.

JackCommons (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This conversation, like Canadian culture itself, is necessarily about comparisons with our giant neighbour. In fact, it's how and why Canada was founded and united, that we do not embrace the Second Amendment, for starters. Your claim that this is not a political issue is hypocritical given this sentence "Canada had very few restrictions before the Liberal government created the current Firearms Act." The prohibition on sidearms and non-hunting rifles is as old as Canada itself and a part of our history and identity. Rural and wilderness people, yes, need their rifles; but they do not advocate, as you are implying by your equivocations, for unrestricted access to side arms and assault rifles, such as are common in the United States. Your agenda here is clearly political, as are your attempts and recommendations to change this article to the Tory/GOP/NRA mindset. Blaming the Liberals for whatever is also clearly a Tory talking point. And an NRA one....Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Skookum1, you're bleeding heart Liberal view of Canada is only one side of the story. Your idea of Canada as a reaction to the USA is laughable. Your claim that prohibition of firearms is as old as Canada itself is a load of bull too. Where do you come up with this stuff? Bringing up the Tories and NRA shows just how weak your viewpoint actually is. In Canada we have the NFA who fight for our firearm rights. Before you want to dismiss the Firearm Culture of Canada as non existent, maybe you should do a bit of research into it. Your one sided view of Canadian culture will not stand. "Wikipedia should seek to reflect reality, not influence it or control it." = where did I read this?? How about you reflect the reality that Canada is in truth deeply divided on the Firearms issue much like our friends to the south. Only the Canadian mainstream media would go out an a limb and say Canada has a history of strict gun control due to 30 years of Liberal failed experimentation. How about you reflect reality? and stop trying to influence it. - Max (a law abiding Canadian) 2:27AM June 9, 2013 EST— Jonjonesjjohnson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You were the one who brought up the Liberals, sir, and have just accused me of being one. I'm a widely-read historian and very familiar with the history of the border and the Canadian West and the Klondike and of British Columbia, in all cases involving stories and policies regarding the ban on handguns and the prevention of US-style gun culture. If you don't read history, or are dismissive of those who "harbour Liberal views", then you are not qualified to comment on it. You are also engaging in WP:Personal attacks and also treating this page as blog; both are not allowed. I'm not going to read your partisan rant, my stomach has had enough of you already today. Like many of your kind, your language skills fall short once again - "you're" - "your" is correct. Not you. And you are the one doing the bullying, sir.Skookum1 (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over the difference between gun control vs gun culture. Nowhere in the article does it mention no gun culture - all it say is the the country has a more stringent control on the guns people use. So yes there has been control on guns for a long time in Canada...

• R. Blake Brown (2012). Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada. University of Toronto Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-4426-6560-6.

In 1867 the Justices of the Peace had the authority to impose a six-month jail term on anyone carrying a handgun, if the person did not have reasonable cause to fear assault against life or property. The first Criminal Code (1892) required individuals to have a basic permit, known as a 'certificate of exemption,' to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. It became an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold pistols or airguns had to keep a record of the purchaser's name, the date of the sale and information that could identify the gun."

But the term gun control when it comes to reinforcing or implementing regulations is a different point all together as seen at Jean L. Manore and Dale Miner (2011). The Culture of Hunting in Canada. UBC Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0-7748-4006-4. - Could it be worded better? Moxy (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I just came across this interesting discussion. It's late, but I'll get a small start on it tonight. First: we should all keep political affiliations out of this one. It is natural for Canadians to compare Canada to the United States when it comes to guns, but one of the chief differences is the restriction on handguns in Canada. And none of the political parties have broached the subject of relaxing this restriction on handguns. So can we please leave politics behind?

In my opinion, the paragraph in question has several potential concerns, in addition to the inclusion of "strict gun control" as an indicator of cultural values. Perhaps it all starts with the reference, Bricker and Wright's book What Canadians think about almost everything. This is a book which has been produced to be an entertaining read as opposed to a scholarly work. And it is written by two Ipsos-Reid pollsters. We know how adept pollsters are at formulating questions and "interpreting" data to get the conclusions they want, right? This might bear some additional investigation (if editors are serious about making changes here) including dragging the book in question out of the nearest library. It may even turn out to be a source we would prefer to eschew. I certainly wouldn't want pollsters defining anything about me! -- Taroaldo ✉ 08:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We could change the book that was written by the Director of Public Opinion Research in the Office of the Prime Minister who has a Ph.D. in political science from Carleton University. But this will not change the fact that the other refs above support the term.Moxy (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

My point, is that saying Canada has a history of strict gun control is wrong. 30 years of strict gun control due to ONE political party, and without the consent of MPs and the public, does NOT constitute a "history of strict gun control". I'm sorry, but your views are skewed towards a Liberal narrative of our history. Please open your mind, and realize that what CBC tells you isn't always true. CHECK out this article on what gun control in Canada has given us since 1977: <url>http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract<\url>

Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament—Bill C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)—nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.

By saying Canada has a history of strict gun control is true only of the last few decades, but you fail to mention that it hasn't actually helped Canadians in any way. To sum up: PLEASE, go ahead and keep your little part about Canada being a bastion of strict gun control, BUT at least provide the facts that prove that all forms of gun control legislation up to this point have been completely useless and a waste of money, because this is REALITY. - MAX (a non-biased Canadian) 13:34, June 9, 2013

Your reality maybe, but you should read WP:TRUTH and WP:BLOG and WP:NPOV and "keep your little part about how we're all CBC-listening capital-L Liberals" or whatever; you bore me and you have NO IDEA about Canadian history, that's clear to me; I even doubt you're Canadian at this point. Not because uyou don't think like us, supposedly, but because you go on the attack about history you haven't even read and know nothing about. Pffft you clearly have a highly partisan and very short-term knowledge of Canadian history; "strict gun control" may have been formulated in Canada in the wake of the Kennedy assassination and the near-civil war in US cities in the '60s, but our "gun culture" (non-gun culture) goes back beyond Conservative PMs like John Diefenbaker right back to Sir John A (also a Conservative and beyond). Your anti-capital-L "Liberal" propaganda here is clearly partisan and taken from a certain party's list of talking points. You are making no headway here whatsoever, and bear in mind that many WP:Canada contributors are, in fact, Tories or Tory aligned. And they have "liberal educations", meaning educations in the liberal arts, which doesn't mean "capital-L Liberal aligned" or "liberal values" but literature, languages, geography, and history. Not history as written by Manning School for Democracy graduates or the Pratt Institute, but actual history. Your premise that we are ignorant because we, supposedly, listen to the CBC is further proof of your partisan bias and role here as an ideologue and word-twister. From Fort Whoop-up, to Fort Steele, to the heights of the White Pass and Gov Douglas' stationing of a ship at the mouth of the Fraser to disarm ships entering that river for the gold rush for guns and also anyone disembarking in Victoria from San Francisco being disarmed or turned back, and more, Canadian history is full of stories that evidently you juust don't know, and even said to me "where do you get this stuff from?" WHERE? REal books, not NRA pamphlets.Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Pointless to keep the debate going if people are not reading the sources provided and trying to refute them. POV have no place here....rebut the sources or find ones that say other wise. The article does not say a "History of gun control" - just states the fact as of this point in time.Moxy (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously my simple request to try to keep things a bit more civil went nowhere. All of the above editors need to look at their own conduct because, frankly, the long-winded diatribes sound ridiculous! I was hoping I could make a useful contribution here, but I see I would be wasting my time. See ya. Taroaldo ✉ 21:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy that political ideologies have no place in this discussion. Skookum1's comments have an emotional quality that make me question whether he wishes to discuss or instigate.

Skookum1 has condemned me as a right wing sympathizer that is using 'taking points,' but his own posts can be construed similarly. Was it the Liberal Party of Canada that introduced the present Firearms Act or not? Skookum1 has purposefully introduced American politics into a Canadian discussion. He also seeks to slander through the implication of political affiliation. All of which are diversionary and irrelevant to the topic at hand. The differences between Canada and the US are not reliant on the second amendment. Canada's identity is not defined by being in reaction to US identity. These very notions are preposterous and do a disservice to our nation.

The prohibition of handguns, fully automatic rifles, and military styled rifles are not as “old as Canada itself.” While firearm registries existed in varying capacities, it was only in 1969 that the classification system came into existence. Up until then, Canadians freely used and owned all types of firearms. Due to the prohibited classification's grandfathering clause Canadians still own these types of firearms. Furthermore, the endless reclassifications of various firearms throughout the years proves the issue of what firearms Canadians should or should not have have remains undecided. Skookum1 your statements concerning firearms and Canadian identity are simply wrong.

I am not arguing that gun control does not exist in Canada. I am also not arguing the legitimacy of any of the politics surrounding the issue. I am however bothered by how an issue with such short but extremely controversial history can be considered a cultural value. It does not make sense. JackCommons (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You accuse ME of spouting political ideologies, but that's all you've been doing, including your cant and accusations about "Liberal" and CBC-viewing and "Liberal education" and your clearly revisionist parrot-talk of the Harperite attempt to rebuild/rewrite Canadian history in the neoTory image. I have no more time for this foolishness; it's a terrible thing to have to de-watchlist my own country's mainpage, but I'm taking this off my watchlist as a pain in the a$$ and a waste of time. The "short but controversial history" is not short AT ALL and is typical of the narrow and short-range views of obvious ideologues adn the historically-ignorant such as yourself. You are out of line, mister, but I'm bored with ANIs and even moreso with axe-grinding, agenda-thumping SPAs such as yourself. De-watchlisting now, have fun with your inevitable ANI.Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that Skookum1 has removed himself and hopefully taken his hot headed tirades along, we can return to debating the topic at hand.

Moxy you stated that 'strict gun control' should be kept based on the the articles listed so far. However, as you also state, 'rebut the sources or find ones that say other wise.' Canada has been repealing law and moving away from gun control: - Long gun registration ended (Bill C-19) - The tabling of Motion M-439 to end the Provincial Chief Firearms Officers, plus various petitions demanding limitations on the powers of Provincial Chief Firearms Officers (http://responsiblefirearmsreform.ca/2013/04/16/cheryl-gallant-introduces-motion-m-439/) - The present Prime Minister's promise to repeal Bill C-68 (http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion-story/2768771-harper-has-vowed-to-rid-canada-of-gun-law/) - The repeal of gun show regulations (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/19/can-gov-repeal-gun-show-regulations.html) - The Ian Thompson trail where the Crown recognized the justified use of firearms for self defense (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun/)

As far as current research concerning gun control, the peer-reviewed article by Dr. Caillin Langmann called “Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008” in 'The Journal of Interpersonal Violence' cannot be ignored. He studied the effects of successive changes to firearms law in Canada. The article concluded, "This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008." (http://online.sagepub.com/search?fulltext=DOI%3A+10.1177%2F0886260511433515&src=hw&andorexactfulltext=and&submit=yes&x=25&y=5) Also, John Lott's current publications proving the negative effects of gun control in North America have yet to be legitimately refuted, but my own research has found that people often have difficulty considering his research objectively due to opinions concerning his personal conduct.

However, and I apologize for repeating myself, I still do not agree that this discussion is about whether gun control works or does not work in Canada. This is a discussion about 'culture.' Merriam-Webster defines 'culture' as: 5.b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture> (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture)

Canada as a whole has a distinct culture and it is important we distinguish it honestly. Due to the size of the country and the variety among provinces, we must be careful to remain objective when discussing the nation as a whole. To use the current discussion as an example, it would be fair to state that Quebec has historically shown a culture of strict gun control. The same statement can not be made when discussing Alberta. When describing the culture of Canada we must be true to the beliefs, social norms, and traits that are shared and accepted throughout the nation. Topics that are found to be controversial throughout Canada should not be listed as valued by the whole. Not only is it misleading, it is misinformation. JackCommons (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mounted Police Sam Steele episode of Canada's "Heritage Minutes" series. -- Heritage Minute -- Moxy (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what your point in posting that article was? It states that a Mountie confiscated various items (including hand guns) from criminals crossing the border. That is not gun control, it is crime control. Also, it concludes with people celebrating the Mountie's departure, implying he and his 'law making / policies' were not supported by the populace. Please explain how this article has anything to do with gun control in Canada. JackCommons (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that some of the disruption appears to have ceased, perhaps some progress can be made. I need to do some more thinking on the whole section, but I do not see what "strict gun control" has to do with cultural values at all. Firearms regulations allow for the possession of many different types of weapons, including handguns. One cannot simply walk into the local sporting goods store and purchase a 9mm, but if you fill out the proper paperwork and clear the appropriate background checks, you will be able to purchase that weapon. There is no concealed carry in Canada, but that is simply a matter of law, not culture. To do the inevitable comparisons with the US, I can drive at a higher posted speed limit there, measurements are in miles and pounds instead of kilometres and kilograms, and they spell "cheque" as "check". None of this has anything to do with culture. Taroaldo ✉ 22:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course gun control is a cultural manifestation - like gay marriage or legalized pot or universal health care, In fact its a recent news topic Liberals use gun control to claim cultural superiority - "cultural signifier". All we can do here is regurgitate what the reliable sources say...we simply dont care about personal opinions if not backup up by some sort of verifiability process. The article does not say a history of,,, - it just say it is now - as does the sources above. Need all to read the book sources above - no guess work please. As for JackCommons sources above - he is correct the conservatives are moving in a different direction - but the current laws despite the ongoing changes are still strict compared to others - thus there is an ongoing "Cultural debate" on the topic. Moxy (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun control is a political manifestation. To say gun control is cultural would mean that opposition to firearms would be a part of Canadian identity. This just simply is not true. Firearms have been a part of Canadian culture since the first settlers set foot on this land. Just because one political party implemented the Firearms Act (against Canadians wishes I might add), does not mean that gun control is a part of Canadian culture. Moxy, you are claiming what left leaning media (aka reliable sources) say about the gun control issue. You can't help this, because news media is terribly biased in Canada. You have to look beyond Canadian mainstream media to realize that gun culture is strong in this country, and always has been. Canada has 2 million gun owners and growing. The truth is, there are plenty of scientific studies proving gun control doesn't work and that public opposition to gun regulation is rising.

Since the passage of the 1995 Canadian Firearms Act and the $1 billion spent on a national long gun registry, opposition to gun regulation has actually risen, especially in rural and small town Canada. - R. Blake Brown

How often to CTV, CBC and Global report the opinions of farmers and other rural folk? Toronto is not Canada. It is not a cultural debate, it is a political debate. There is NOTHING cultural about gun control in Canada. Gun control was a political creation in reaction to Mark Lepine and his stupid shooting spree. Many Canadians and politicians opposed it. To say the Liberal Party and a handful of feminist groups is equal to all of Canadian culture is terribly misleading. - Max Freddy ✉ 21:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If the 'liberal mainstream media' report it that is how it works. You may not like it, but that is the way things work here. Oh and Moxy has sources up there we should look at. And 'the liberal party and a handful of feminist groups' I think pretty much gives away your POV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My POV? I have my criticisms of feminism and the Liberals, much like everything, but your attempt at labeling me a misogynist redneck is laughable. You forget that it's them who have a problem with me owning a firearm, therefor it is them who are discriminating me. I support Womens Shelters, I protested the closing of the YWCA in Niagara Falls, ON. I am also pro-choice. I am also pro-gun rights. We obviously know your POV: believe the media, even if what they report is biased. BTW, Dbrodbeck, Let's look at what Sir. John A MacDonald had to say: (he's no David Suzuki, but a cultural figure none the less, remember who he is?)

In March, 1877, Dominick Blake, the Minister of Justice in the Liberal cabinet of Prime Minister Alexander Mackensie, reported to Parliament that the "...practive of carrying fire-arms [sic] was becoming too common" especially among "...the rowdy and reckless characters and boys and young men". He introduced legislation which specified a criminal penalty for persons "...whosoever should present a pistol, without reasonable cause, at anyone, might be bound over to keep the peace for six months" (Hansard, 1877, p. 850).Both Blake and Sir John A. Macdonald had concerns about the proposal. Both recognized that firearms, and handguns in particular, were routinely carried by law-abiding Canadians for self defense. Blake realized that criminals would probably ignore the law "...while the sober, law-abiding citizen would be unprotected". Sir John A. Macdonald stated that the law "...might have the effect of disarming the person who ought to be armed, and arming the rowdies" (Hansard, 1877, p. 851). The bill was passed by Parliament in April of 1877; however, the controversy it generated indicated that it established early in Canada's history that it was both reasonable and necessary for law-abiding Canadians to carry firearms, and handguns in particular, as a deterrent to criminal assault.

Max Freddy ✉ 21:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Where, precisely, did I call you any name like 'redneck' or 'misogynist'? Discuss the page, not the editor. I know you are a new, single purpose account, but you ought to read up on a few things before going off on me.Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Any mention of gun owners being victimized on Wikipedia? - Max Freddy ✉ 23:03, 15 June 2013 ({)

Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTAFORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please everyone, let us avoid turning this back into an emotional debate. This is about deciding whether gun control is a Canadian cultural value or not. Although, I must admit the consistent emotional interruptions in this conversation speaks to my point that this issue remains controversial. To use the example of healthcare, Canadians may have different opinions on it, but it is universally implemented across the nation and is being used by the majority of Canadians. There have been pushes to modify and improve it, but Canadians are not split on keeping or ridding the country of it. The same cannot be said about 'gun control' laws. Also, it was noted that the present political party is moving away from gun control, implying that this is simply their view and not that of Canada in general. However, the same can be said about the implementation of gun control in Canada. It was implemented by a single political party against the wishes of millions of Canadians. A large portion of Canadian society has been reacting against it ever since. JackCommons (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Patricia Cormack; James Cosgrave (2013). Desiring Canada - (CLICK HERE -read me). University of Toronto Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-4426-6330-5.

Gun control is clearly a political issue in Canada. It is an issue that only majority governments (of any party) tackle because the population as a whole does not share the same views on gun control as say universal health care. In 1995 the Liberal government of the day brought in bill C-68, the strictest gun control legislation to date. Once the Conservatives gained a majority government in 2011, they repealed a major portion of bill C-68 (the long gun registry) in February of 2012. This had been a part of their election platform the past 3 elections and was no surprise to those who voted for them. For their upcoming convention, the Conservative Part of Canada has on its agenda four different "Rules for Policy Discussions" that move to relax some of bill C-68 even further. Meanwhile, the NDP and Liberals opposed the scrapping of the LGR and are in favour of stricter gun control. This is pure politics. Mccomber (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC) — Mccomber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The reference used for "strict gun control" only mentions gun control in one sentence and does not state anything about it other than it is different than in the US. From the book:

"It is not an exaggeration to say that, with the possible exceptions of gun control and foreign policy, no issue differentiates the social philosophies of Canada and the United States the way health care does."

Mccomber (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun control is not clearly a political issue in Canada. It's a political reality in Canada. The long gun registry was not a gun control issue but rather it was presented as a financial issue. Everyone knew that long guns would not be under less control if the Conservatives gained power, only that we would stop spending money on double-tracking the owners. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Long guns most certainly are under less control without the registry. Individuals can freely buy and sell long guns to and from other licensed individuals without any paper trail whatsoever. It wasn't just presented as a financial issue. It was presented as a financial issue because it was deemed to be a gun control measure that the Conservatives said does not improve the public safety and therefore waste of money. Mccomber (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Norman L. Lunger (2002). Big Bang: The Loud Debate Over Gun Control. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-7613-2260-3.
• Joseph Heath; Andrew Potter (2010). The Rebel Sell: Why The Culture Can't Be Jammed. HarperCollins Canada. p. 200. ISBN 978-1-55468-918-7.
• Jean Chretien (2010). My Years as Prime Minister. Knopf Canada. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-307-36872-0.
• --Moxy (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ref. Norman Lunger's book, "strict" is a relative term. Here he is comparing Canada to the US and the term applies with many states (though other states and/or cities have much stricter gun control than Canada such as Chicago and California). However, if we are comparing then Canada has "loose" gun control when compared to Britain, Australia and Japan.

Ref. Heath/Potter's book is full of holes and the theories presented have been refuted by the likes of John Lott and others. "There are almost no handguns, no semi-automatics and absolutely no assault rifles" is also false. Check out the RCMP stats, particularly "Restricted and Prohibited Firearms per 100,000".

Ref. Jean Chretien's book, "We have one of the toughest gun control laws in the world, and Canadians want to keep it that way" is incorrect and opinion only.Mccomber (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Like to see a reply about the actual sources - I have to disagree with your opinion....

Norman Lunger's book - this is one of just 8 refs here that use that term - can they all be dismissed? As for Britain, Australia and Japan this is true - but Canada seems to have this term applied to it aswell (per all the sources above and this one)

Ref. Heath/Potter's - agree this is a debate - but most sources would agree less guns = less gun crime in general (again sourced above). As for the link to Canadian Firearms Program not sure what is being shown - I dont see any mention of handguns, semi-automatics or assault rifles there.

Ref. Jean Chretien's book - it is just an opinion - (hope the following does not sound mean) but unlike your anonymous opinion he is a person of Canadian historical significances.

SO needless to say we seem to have a huge number of sources to back up the claim in the article - not one that refutes this directly - just links to bills and stats that dont mention the topic directly. Moxy (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If the 8 refs that use that term are all comparing Canada to the US and not any other Western or comparable nations then yes, they absolutely can be dismissed because this article is not title "How Canada is different from the US". Studies showing less guns = less crime tend to be flawed studies that were looking for that result from the outset and most have been refuted. For example they often tout Britain's reduction in homicide by firearm but fail to mention its continued increase in homicide and violent crime overall. Newer studies show that more guns either has no effect or = less crime. I will research and provide more references to this besides John Lott's book. As for Jean Chretien, while he certainly is of historical significance, he is still a Liberal politician expressing his political opinions on a political topic. If you can quote the majority of Canadian Prime Ministers saying something similar than it would be a cultural value and not a Liberal one. The link to the RCMP page does not have an anchor to the section I'm referring to. It is just past half-way down and is a table titled "Restricted and prohibited firearms per 100,000 Population". This table shows that on average there are thousands of restricted and prohibited firearms (read handguns, "military-style" semi-automatics and prohibited can mean assault rifles) per 100,000 for any given area of the country.Mccomber (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no they can't be dismissed. I know you are another new WP:SPA who registered today and immediately came to this talk page, but, we don't just dismiss sources we don't like. The statements are sourced. This discussion is, in fact, quite pointless. If three brand new single purpose accounts show up and demand something and are told by people who have been doing this for a very long time that they are wrong, they might actually be wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Being a new account to WP doesn't mean I am new to this topic. It just means I am interested enough to transition from a passive reader to an active one. As for the 1 weak source that does NOT mention gun control as a cultural value, yes I can dismiss it with the arguments above.Mccomber (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, here are references of the more guns = less crime variety: More Guns, Less Crime John Lott

Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008 Caillin Langmann, MD, PhD

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence (Harvard Law Review) Professor Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University Don B. Kates, retired

Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment Don B. Kates

Gun Control is not Crime Control Professor Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University

I think these show that there is a counterpoint to proponents of strict gun control. More importantly, the following references support the notion that gun control in Canada is a political issue and not a cultural value:

Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control In Canada R. Blake Brown

Canadian Politics, Riding by Riding Tony L. Hill

The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy Robert Malcolm Campbell

The Politics of Kim Campbell: From School Trustee to Prime Minister Murray Dobbin

This talking point is about whether Gun Control is a Canadian cultural value or a Canadian political issue. Not about whether gun control is good, bad or something else entirely. Just is it a commonly shared cultural value or not. If I try to think of Canadian cultural values (I'm Canadian) off the top of my head I come up with health care and human rights immediately. Gun control is not even on my list. That is not to say that it isn't on other Canadian's list, it certainly is. But to say that the majority of Canadians share that opinion is disingenuous at best.Mccomber (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, you state that, “Needless to say we seem to have a huge number of sources to back up the claim in the article - not one that refutes this directly - just links to bills and stats that dont mention the topic directly.” This is disconcerting because many of the 'sources' being used to back up 'gun control' as a Canadian value are opinion pieces or do not even have relevant context to the argument being made. I have mentioned this aspect specifically in previous comments and received no reply. I also find it disturbing that Mccomber has now responded with links challenging your statement and that some of those links have been previously posted. This implies you may be willfully ignoring contrary evidence. I would also note (again) the links posted by myself, and now Mccomber, are not opinion pieces or manipulated statistics. They are current peer reviewed research and government documentation. They are objective, not subjective.

Also, the topic of 'comparison' has come up again and, as has been mentioned, it is an injustice not to look at other countries that have influenced Canada’s growth and identity. After all, and it should be no surprise, the idea of ‘strict’ gun control is relative:

The United Kingdom has significantly stricter Gun Control laws: UK gun owners http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/9446474/UK-gun-owners.html

Indepth comparisons can be performed at GunPolicy.org: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

And while both countries are considered “Restrictive” by GunPolicy.org comparison of the listed facts shows Canada to be far more liberal.

France also has stricter gun control than Canada: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france

Australia as well has more strict regulations concerning firearms than Canada: Australia's Gun Laws: Little Effect http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

Again a comparison can easily be made: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

All this to say that stating Canada has a culture of “strict gun control” because its application of law can be contrasted as more regulatory than the US is ignorant. A more balanced view is found when Canada is compared to other common wealth countries and countries of which it has cultural relations, not limited to the neighbor down south. When these comparisons are made Canada is shown to be a significantly less strict in this domain.

Further research will also show that the countries listed above, like Canada, are polarized on the issue. As has been mentioned by other posters in this conversation, gun control is strictly political. It is not and cannot be a cultural value in Canada. Its relevance is dependent on political parties and various lobby groups promotion and attention. In Canada, and many other commonwealth countries, specific governments have created legislation in reaction to specific events that have criminalized or marginalized massive segments of their population. A single government’s policy cannot be representative of a countries culture or value system.

JackCommons (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

One policy? This indicates to me no refs that have been provided have been read. Can we get all the new editors to read the statement in the article. To quote ".......strict gun control, and the legalization of same-sex marriage are further social indicators of Canada's political and cultural values". -- Moxy (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, you continue to ask that your references be re-read, but it does not appear that you are reading any of the references posted that oppose your opinion. Also, you list random references without providing explanations or any context of why they are relevant- even when explicitly asked to do so. This discussion appears to be at a standstill. I have requested for dispute resolution.JackCommons (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Jack Commons, you have presented a strong viewpoint both on gun control and the Liberal Party, and neither is helpful to discussing your request. The NFA by the way is not representative of how Canadians view gun control. I remember they were outspoken in the Montague case, which puts them outside the mainstream. The fact is that most Canadians across the political spectrum support gun control, even if they differ over the details.

The article does not say btw that strict gun control is considered a Canadian cultural value. It actually says, "Government policies such as publicly funded health care, higher taxation to redistribute wealth, the outlawing of capital punishment, strong efforts to eliminate poverty, strict gun control, and the legalization of same-sex marriage are further social indicators of Canada's political and cultural values." I do not see anything wrong with that statement.

TFD (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Four Deuces, I doubt the majority of Canadians even know the NFA exists, much less subscribe to any part of its agenda. The statement on cultural values is correct in its context, perhaps a little long winded, but not inaccurate. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I am unclear how simply referencing a political parties policies and actions constitutes a 'strong viewpoint'?

Also, the popularity of the NFA is irrelevant. How popular is the Coalition for Gun Control outside of Montreal, Quebec? I would gamble they do not have any members in Alberta. The NFA has members across Canada and is also a registered government lobby group. The CGC is not. Alongside the NFA, there also exists the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA). Excuse my sarcasm, but for a country that has a 'culture of gun control' it seems strange it would have two active national pro firearms organizations. If we want to go back to comparing Canada to the USA, that's double!

The aim of Wikipedia is to provide objective information. Opinion must be avoided. TFD, you've stated an opinion that a majority of Canadians support gun control, but there is no proof. However, current history and legislation proves that Canadians no longer even support the controls they had (Repeal of LGR links already posted). If you were to read what has already been discussed, Canadians' views on gun control are constantly shifting and extremely varied throughout the nation. Lastly, the very label 'Gun Control' is subjective and only relative to what (province, country, etc.) it is compared to, as also previously discussed.

This is at the heart of what is wrong with including gun control as a Canadian cultural value. It simply isn't. As I have previously stated, "When describing the culture of Canada we must be true to the beliefs, social norms, and traits that are shared and accepted throughout the nation. Topics that are found to be controversial throughout Canada should not be listed as valued by the whole."JackCommons (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

JackCommons, the text does not say gun control is a cultural value but that it is an indicator of Canada's political and cultural values. Presumably the value it reflects is order. Here is a link to a 2003 Environics poll that says 58% of Canadians "strongly support" federal which gun control legislation. You are setting up strawmen btw. Strong support for gun control does not mean that one belongs to a gun control organization or support the LGR. Part of Canadian values is the expectation that government will make the correct decisions, hence no need for citizen activism. TFD (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's sad that a handful of people with internet savvy can shape how a visitor to the Canadian page on Wikipedia views our country. Canada has more strict gun control than America, yes, as it has been shown in the many useless links above. However, if you actually looked into the system in place it is very easy to buy a non restricted firearm in Canada. You simply take a weekend course, don't have a criminal record, pass the test and you can buy as many non restricted guns and ammo you want. Restricted firearms have a couple paperwork hoops to jump through, but they are also fairly simply to attain if you are an honest citizen. That does not sound like a strict cultural value to me. It sounds like something written by an uninformed citizen with a narrow view of Canada. Robert from BC (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Robert from BC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article does not say that strict gun control is a "strict cultural value" or value of any kind. TFD (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have stepped back and given this situation some thought. This debate has done nothing but prove how controversial and subjective the term "gun control" is. Would there be any agreement on replacing the phrase "gun control" with "responsible gun ownership"? I believe this is what truly separates Canada from many other countries. It is not that Canada has 'strict gun control,' but that Canadians' value responsibility and safety when it comes to firearms and promote this through reasonable legislation. I believe this phrase better explains the current situation and also serves to respect the broad views of Canadians on this issue. eg: "Canadian Government policies such as; publicly funded health care, higher and more progressive taxation, outlawing capital punishment, strong efforts to eliminate poverty, an emphasis on cultural diversity, responsible gun ownership, and most recently legalizing same-sex marriage – are social indicators of Canada's political and cultural values." ."JackCommons (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Responsible gun ownership" normally implies a right to keep and bear arms. Canadian courts have decided that that right was not incorporated into the Canadian constitution. TFD (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What we tell Americans when they move here - Terese Loeb Kreuzer; Carol Bennett (2007). How to Move to Canada: A Primer for Americans. St. Martin's Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-4299-0625-8. Canada's Parliament passed a strict gun control bill in 1991..... and what the 19th Prime Minister of Canada a conservative had to say in relation to it being a cultural value - Beth Slaney (1996). The Darling Diaries: Memoirs of a Political Career. Dundurn. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-55488-321-9. Kim Campbell said yesterday that the gun control legislation expected to be passed today is a reflection of a unique Canadian culture.. The term "Responsible gun ownership" is simply not used in Canada except by the one lobbyist group - the term is simply not in the history books in relation to Canada. -- Moxy (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That lobbyist group argues that Canadians have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. ("That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law...." Bill of Rights 1689) TFD (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow.... Anyway, I suggest that our SPA back away from the dead horse. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights of 1689 has no legal application to Canadian law as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms overrides all previous legislation. Even if it were applicable that passage cited above would have to be declared unconstitutional as it discriminates on religious grounds. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the Charter overrides all previous legislation except the Constitution. Hence the Supreme Court determined that separate schools and the succession act both violated the Charter but were lawful because they were part of the constitution. But some imperial laws, such as the Limitation Act 1623, remain valid until changed by federal or provincial legislatures. The 1623 act remains in force federally except where legislation provides different limitation periods but has been replaced in its entirety in Ontario, most recently by the Limitations Act 2002. The Bill of Rights 1689 is in the latter category. TFD (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That is nonsense, the Charter is entrenched in the Constitution, so they are the same document. You cannot be in contravene of the Charter without contravening the Constitution and vice versa. What is overridden by the Charter is by definition unconstitutional. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

See O'Donohue v. Canada: "It is well settled that the Charter cannot be used to amend or trump another part of our constitution...."[5] TFD (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That applies only to the Constitution of Canada Act 1982 itself, no other document. Especially one that is legally invalid. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The preceding sentence says, "In the present case all parties acknowledge that if the impugned portions of the Act of Settlement have constitutional status then the matter is not justiciable." The Act of Settlement 1701 is not part of the Constitution of Canada Act 1982 itself, but cannot be invalidated by the Charter because it is part of the Constitution. I do not know to which "legally invalid document" you refer. TFD (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the legally invalid document is the Bill of Rights of 1689, which quite obviously is a different document than the Act of Settlement 1701. Apples and oranges. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not say it was did I. In fact I said the 1689 act was an imperial act that was not part of the constitution but that the Canadian Firearms Association said it was. It was a valid law, but as I said has probably been entirely overwritten by subsequent federal and provincial laws. Don't really know what your point is. TFD (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)