Talk:Canada/Archive 8

Archives
2003–2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 2006 7 8 9 10 2007 11 12 13 14 15 2008 16 17 18 2009 19 2010 20 2011 21 2012 22 2013 23 2015–present 24 25 26 27 Discussion of Canada's official name Canada's name Official Name 1 Future TFA paragraph Main Page

Commas and spaces

There is no clear rule in WP:MOS and there is a clear Canadian style in this manner. Just as Canadian english is used in this article, Canadian style should be used in the article. Commas are a cause of confusion in Canada because they can also mean periods, especially for english-speaking people living in Quebec. The space involves no confusion, and is not specifically against the Manual of Style (the manual of style says "may"). I will be changing it back. -- Jeff3000 02:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should get a clear consensus here on this issue before you make such a change. Pourquoi? Because if you don't you will forever be changing these figures back and forth. Someone will come along and change them. Also, keep in mind that one reason that spaces are a bad idea is because they cause breaks unless you place a nonbreaking space tag in there. MJCdetroit 03:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but it wasn't I who caused the first revert. As I was fixing the numbers I noticed the lack of Canadian style, and changed it, and it was others who reverted me. The breaks issue is valid in general, but not in the infobox which has a set width; try making the browser window narrower and the infobox will retain its width until the infobox goes well past the Wikipedia right column navigation links (user's would never make it that narrow). -- Jeff3000 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar—sure use the Canadian (British) style. However, on the numbers, I think you should be prepare for an up-hill battle. It is going to get changed...a lot. My friend who lives in Windsor said that the spacing is more of a French Canadian style than a Canadian style and sent me a link to an article in today's Windsor Star Newpaper to prove it. I don't personally like the numbers with spaces, but I won't change them—especially if a majority of the editors to this article want the figures shown with spaces and not commas.—MJCdetroit 04:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever consensus is. I don't feel too strongly for it, but it does remove the possibility of any confusion. -- Jeff3000 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such uniformity in Canadian style. Canadian writing in English use commas much more often than spaces.

Furthermore, it's even more confusing when you change decimal points to spaces as well, as you (Jeff3000) did in this edit, changing "$1.167 trillion" to "$1 050 trillion", just arbitrarily making it 900 times as big. Gene Nygaard 05:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What are stating Gene, that I made the mistake on purpose to increase the GDP numbers? I was moving to remove the commas, and sure I made a simple mistake, but that's it. I'm sure you've made typos as well. -- Jeff3000 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I make simple mistakes every once in a while.

But aside from misinterpreting the dot, I think you were trying to decrease the number. It probably would have been to make that change in an edit separate from one characterized as being a punctuation change. If you weren't intending any change in the number, then 1.167 trillion should be restored. Gene Nygaard 13:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognize that even you make some mistakes. But back to the point, the number was being corrected to that which is cited by the IMF (the old number before the switch to the CIA number was not sourced, and not verifiable, and couldn't be included.) The CIA number is valid, but given that Canada was listed at number 11, that would go with the IMF numbers. Even MJCDetroit confirms that above. And as I mentioned above (please read my statement) I said that while I was changing the number to the verifiable number I noticed the difference in style and changed it. Could you assume a little good faith? -- Jeff3000 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We've got to go with commas between the thousands and periods for the decimal. This is the most common style in English Canada. If you have any doubts, pull five random Canadian books off the shelf or look at five major Canadian newspapers. As for the argument that things are done differently in French Canada, I can only respond by pointing out that this article is in English. HistoryBA 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Five articles from five different Canadian English newspapers using comma separation. They were all taken off of today's front pages and were not AP wire reprints. Here are the links: Toronto Star, Edmonton Journal, St. John's The Express, Calgary herald, and The Vancouver Sun——MJCdetroit 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine change it back, like I said I'm not that for it, but I still feel it removes any ambiguity. -- Jeff3000 02:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a Canadian style regarding numbers and it's achieved using spaces as per SI (Metric) standard, but allows for variation based on readership. Now, what's more Canadian than making sure everyone is happy ;). [1] CMacMillan 18:14 4 April 2006 (UTC)

STATS

I think it's about time to revamp all the stat's. Some are listed at 2003, when there's already 2005 info. The GDP is cleary not of 2006 etc.....--24.80.25.37 21:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, be bold. Andrewjuren(talk) 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples"

Without wishing to be too nitpicking 'all countries were 'originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples'. That's what aboriginal means. DJ Clayworth 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If we were to capitalize Aboriginal or use the legal status term 'Indian' or find some other way on indicating that we are refering to a certain race of people, that might solve this little problem.Jaderaid 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth Template?

Firsly, there was already a discussion of the commonwealth template (among others) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canada/Archive3#Templates

Since the Commonwealth Realms template is featured on Monarchy in Canada and since the Commonwealth is featured here already on Template:Canada ties, I think it should be removed. -- TheMightyQuill 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for the G8 Template. I'm going to be bold and remove them both. -- TheMightyQuill 16:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Right on! There are way too many possible templates that could be used in the Canada article. The purpose of the Canada ties template was to reduce the clutter in the article. Thanks for being bold, Quill. Ground Zero | t 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

History

I have made efforts to consolidate the history section in my sandbox area User:Maclean25/sandbox#History. The changes include removing unnecessary sub-headings, improving the conciseness of the writing, covering broad topics w/o going into details (that should be in the sub-article), and using strategic wikilinking (to avoid going into further detail). As this is supposed to be a summary style account I limited the structure to one paragraph for each of the following:

• pre-history to European exploration (1630s),
• French/British/Indian wars/relations (1689-1763),
• American Revolution and War of 1812 (1775-1812),
• 1837 to 1867,
• 1867 confederation,
• 1867 to WWII,
• WWII to 1982,
• Quebec (1960s to 1997)

I considered everything after 2000 to be recent (ie. not history) and so should be placed in the appropriate section elsewhere in the article. There are several wikilinks that I could not figure out how to get in there. If there is any interest in working these ideas into the main article please contact me. --maclean25 03:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I did make some edits to it, I hope you don't mind. Maybe others might want to review it first but I think it's okay to bring it in. I especially like what you did with the Quebec soverignty issue, and , of course, mentioning the Yukon up front. ;-) Luigizanasi 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for editing it. The only way these things improve is with many different people reviewing it with fresh eyes. --maclean25 08:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Now all that needs to be done is fix the actual History of Canada page(s). =) --TheMightyQuill

It looks good to me. HistoryBA 22:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote to move the version by maclean25 into this article to get rid of the subheadings. One more step toward getting this page to Featured article status. -- Jeff3000 01:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

When did french become an official language? Talous 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

From the Bilingualism in Canada page:

"Official bilingualism in various forms dates back to Canadian Confederation in 1867, when the British North America Act allowed both French and English for parliamentary debates and federal court cases. However, for many decades French was given an inferior position in Canadian confederation. The use of French, especially in education, was on several occasions curtailed in mainly English-speaking provinces such as in the Manitoba Schools Question and Ontario's Regulation 17. Bilingualism in its more extensive modern form began with the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which started work in 1963 and eventually led to the original Official Languages Act in 1969."

-- Jeff3000 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadian celebrities section

411junkie (talk • contribs) added the Canadian celebrities section. At best, I think this belongs in Portal:Canada, since this appears to be an attempt at using Canada as the "main page" for the subject of Canada and this is the entire purpose of wikipedia:Portals. Also note that the first article in the list, List of Famous Canadian Actors, is authored by the same user and so inserting the link into a prominent place here is a species of vanity. I haven't looked too hard at that article, but the miscapitalisation and redness of the user's name indicate that they're simply inexperienced in these things. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree: this is too much information for an overview article that is (arguably) already loaded. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Jkelly 19:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Harper picture

Is there a reason why the Harper picture is so big? -- Jeff3000 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why, but the thumbnail size was set to 240px. I reduced it to 125, the same as the pictures of the Queen and the G-G and it certainly seems to sit better on the page. Eron 20:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thumbnails usually don't specify a size. The size of thumbnails is controlled through each user's preference settings. When specifying a size like 125px or 240px in the code you override the preference feature. See Wikipedia:Images#Image preferences. --maclean25 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this one already had a size specified. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Referendums or Referenda?

Which version of the plural of referendum should we use in this article? (I started this discussion previously, but it is now archived.)

I recognize that both versions are acceptable in English. My preference is for referendums, because, as the referendum article states, the OED considers referendums to be preferable. I realize that this is not a big deal for this article, but I would like to settle this through discussion and consensus. Replies like "both versions are acceptable, so we must use 'referenda'" are unsatisfactory.

It is possible there are overlooked and uncorrected spelling errors in the above paragraph. Please do not dismiss my entire point if you find any. --thirty-seven 06:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As before and above, I believe either form is acceptable ... and particularly in this situation. Dictionaries generally do not make the distinction above, even my single-volume New Oxford Dictionary of English. The two referenda, the first in 1980 and the other in 1995, concerned different and arguably complex issues (entailing 'sovereignty-association' and 'sovereignty', respectively) and posed different questions. I can be compelled otherwise. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that point, that the two questions (1980 and 1995) were significantly different. However, it is clear (to me) that the sentence under discussion is specifically referring to the fact that there were two "popular votes" or plebiscites, and not to the fact that there were two different questions. --thirty-seven 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

They were completely different questions and, arguably, different issues with different proposals. And what's good for the goose may not be for the gander: to me, all of the nuances above may be relevant. Each referendum entailed multiple issues and (also) uncertainties with what was meant by the term 'sovereignty'. Otherwise, I defer to prior comments but can be compelled otherwise. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't worth discussing. If you want to change it, thirty-seven, then change it. I for one don't care which you choose. I do care that people are wasting time discussing it though, because it won't make the article one whit better or worse whichever form is eventually chosen. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Here here. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for referenda. President Lethe 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I solicited for opinions, and I got them. One for referenda and two I don't cares. I'm content to leave it as referenda in this article. --thirty-seven 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of God Save the Queen

The Royal Anthem was replaced by the Canadian National Anthem. Probably it was still used in some schools intitially afterwards, but today there is virtually no one who sings the Royal Anthem, so a star or note should be put underneath saying that it is not practicised in public institutions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.162.140 (talk • contribs) .

According to Canadian Heritage "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." [2] It is used on public occasions as part of the protocol for musical salutes to the Queen, other members of the Royal Family, and the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors. [3] Eron 01:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I attended a Duke of Edinburgh Award ceremony in Calgary during 2003 at which the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta was present. God Save The Queen was certainly played at that ceremony, so unless things have changed in the last three years, I would suggest that the Royal Anthem is still alive and well in appropriate Canadian situations. In most situations of course the National Anthem is more appropriate than the Royal Anthem and so it is the anthem which is played. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced images

The images of the canadarm and montreal biosphere seem out of place.. should they be removed? this article has quite a few pictures as it is. Mlm42 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking that the other day. Unless someone wants to write a subsection called "Canada's Space Program" I don't see why the article should have a photo of the Canadarm. -- TheMightyQuill 16:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the biosphere picture seems out-of-place. I would prefer it replaced with a more "standard" photo of the city of Montreal. However, I think the Canadarm photo should remain, although it could be moved to a section talking about science, technology, or industry. --thirty-seven 17:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed these two photos (although I wanted to keep the Canadarm, I couldn't fit the image into the article nicely anywhere). I added another Montreal photo into the Language section. --thirty-seven 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada Article Featured?

I think that this article should be featured. The League of Crazy Men 11:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You just got your wish today.Michael Dorosh 00:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

British defeat at Yorktown in 1781

This subsection should be renamed and simplified. Since our goal is a very brief overview of the most important aspects of Canadian history, I think the focus on direct Canadian involvement should be removed. Although this is an interesting and important aspect of Canadian history that was previously unknown to me, I don't think it belongs in this article. Rather, this section should be pared down to focus on the most important effects of the American Revolution on Canada: namely the United Empire Loyalists and their impact on Canada. I have made these changes to the article. --thirty-seven 22:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we get rid of the subsection completely (I opposed this before), and use Maclean25's suggestion at User:Maclean25/sandbox#History. This would be one step further toward applying for featured article status. -- Jeff3000 23:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose the use of Maclean25's suggestion. If no one does, I'll go ahead and put it up in a day or so. -- Jeff3000 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed in principal. I took at look at Maclean25's suggestion, and I think it could use some minor tweaks - but nothing that couldn't be done after it is integrated into this article. --thirty-seven 05:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and made the change. If you are very much against it, please go ahead and revert my change, otherwise, let's work on improving this version. -- Jeff3000 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The misconception that Canada was build by a victory over the French deserve to be explain.

The Defeat of the British is not unimportant to understand why pro-queen live in Canada and not in the US, only 2000 english came in Québec from 1759 to 1783, as oppose to 50 000 that came suddently because French had defeated the English at Yorktown...You cannot for ever hide a tsunami like this. In 150 years their was 60 000 quebecker in 1759. Suddently the Defeat of the British over the French at Yorktown (they were more numerous then the american) resulted in the same number of people comming suddently in Canada...how can you hide this fact ? Would you not talk about the hollocaust because you don't like it ?

Before their defeat the British didn't care about canada that much. After it they cared a lot. Simcoe was defeated at Yorktown that's why he made Toronto in 1783. That is also Yorktown that created Ontario ! You cannot hide this.

Yorktown 1781 is the foundation and arrival of the British defeated in Canada, it's call reality and you cannot change reality because you don't like it. How do you hide this fact that suddently 50 000 people suddently move and you don't tell why ?

I understand that this is news for you but it none the less the thruth. And people deserve to know this.

The so-call american revolution amputated all former new france territory south of the great lake area ! This is not un-important to know that it's the British defeat that lost New France Territory in the US, not Quebec 1759.

And a full regiment of Quebecker were at Yorktown it's not what can be described as neutral And a son of a quebecker was in the Navy battle in front of Yorktown. Louis-Philippe de Vaudreuil you can check all this in google.com if you dont beleive me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.217.115.66 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, the defeat of the British in the American Revolution, and the subsequent mass-migration of Loyalists and other English-speakers to Canada, hugely transformed Canada. It is probably the most significant event in Canadian history since the founding of New France, in my opinion. My earlier point was that, since this article can only give the briefest overview of all of Canadian history, we cannot afford to mention that Quebeckers were involved in the American Revolution. This should be explained in the full Canadian History articles, and the article about the American Revolution, but not here. Here we should stick to the most significant facts: British Loyalists settled in Canada following the American Revolution, and it had a large impact on Canada. I think your point about Britain's big shift of focus and emphasis to their Canadian colonies following the American Revolution is a very good one, and deserves mention in a sentence in the History section of this article.

To sum up:

• We should focus on the impact on Canada of the British defeat
• We should not focus on how the British were defeated

--thirty-seven 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have some verifiable and reliable sources for these points of view (not your own views) then go ahead and add them to the History of Canada page. The history section in this page is currently being shrunk to meet Featured article status. -- Jeff3000 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image suggestion

i suggest to put this picture :

Moraine Lake by Lake Louise Alberta Canada.jpg

thank you....took from the deuth version of canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.166.50 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure which image you are referring too, but it may be Image:Moraine_Lake_17092005.jpg or Image:Morraine lake.jpg, both of which are quite stunning and free of copyright. -- Jeff3000 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Moraine_Lake_by_Lake_Louise_Alberta_Canada.jpg presumably this is the one. heqs 07:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost a featured article?

I think we are almost there. What I think we still need to do:

1. Possibly get rid of the sections in the Politics sections. The Country Wikiproject recommends a summary style with no subsections.
2. Find references for the two remaining sections that are missing references (Language and Foreign Relations) see Canada/References.

What does anyone think about how to deal with the subsections in the politics section, and does anyone have references for the language and military sections? -- Jeff3000 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we've some way to go still:

• I'm unsure how to restructure the politics section moreso than currently; the section headers can be removed but I do not believe the content within them can be pruned substantially without loss of information. Similarly, though I commend efforts that have significantly reduced the article's size, I believe the article can stand for more economising (e.g., a tad too top heavy on pre-1867 history; move climate details to subarticle (not prescribed in wikiproject), as well as for foreign relations, sports, and national symbols (move to dedicated subarticle?);
• I haven't forgotten about references for the two sections above, but I've been admittedly tardy and on a wikibreak of sorts ... give me a few days. And then I think we must, at least for some details, provide in-line citations/references. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I agree that the history section can still be shortened
• I also don't think the politics section should be shortened, just maybe remove the subsection headings
• Agree that we need more use of In-line references. Specifically, all relatively recent events should have an in-line reference (newer than 2000); also any time a specific number is quoted (temperature, percentage, etc)
• Climate should stay in the Geography section. From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries "Geography - Quick description of the country's main features, climate", so there should be a description of climate, especially given the stereotype of Canada as a cold weather country.

Remember: I'm all for pruning and not necesarily obliterating. Anything that is not prescribed can be pruned and definitely moved: if it needs to stay, one paragraph (at most) regarding climate is sufficient. And it's not necessarily a stereotype: the country, given its location and size, covers numerous climate zones ... including ones I'mnot as receptive to. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• While Foreign Relation, sports and National Symbols are not in the Country wikiproject, other featured countries have them in some sort or other:

• For Foreign Relations/Military see Australia, South Africa, India (in politics), Pakistan (in politics). We may be able to shorten it here, but given that the politics section is already so long, we should leave it as it's own section, and in that regards no use really shortening it.

Agreed; of the sections noted, this is the one that I'm most reluctant to touch, given the importance of multlateralism in Cdn. foreign affairs, et al. I believe it can be pruned, e.g., of particularly atomic historical/battle details. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• For sports Australia, India and Pakistan have a paragraph on sports in the Culture section. We could shorten the current section and do the same

Definitely as above: TMI for an overview article. Shorten. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• For National Symbols, India has a table. I wouldn't mind getting rid of this section, but I do really like the image. -- Jeff3000 16:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely as above: I'm all for expatiation of this and that, but there should be subarticles for relevant content – two/three paragraphs tops. And I think a better image can be had (e.g., maple tree with leaves; even a Toronto Maple Leafs image, which would kill part of the above too ;)). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

So I've moved the National Symbols section to National symbols of Canada and merged a considerably shortened Sports section into the Culture section. Suggestions still on the table:

• Shorten military section, prune of particularly atomic historical/battle details
• Suggestions on Politics sections
• Shorten History section, particulary pre-1867
• Find in-line references for numbers and recent events. -- Jeff3000 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I shortened and revised the History section. Dropped minor points and added new information Rjensen 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally an improvement, but was removing the October Crisis and adding a redlinked Manitoba Schools Question a good idea? -- TheMightyQuill 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hah, my own comment just demonstrated it was only a typo, not an major mistake. I'll fix it. -- TheMightyQuill 19:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples"

Isn't this redundant?

Honorific Titles

On the Canada page how come the use of "The Right Honourable" is used for John A Macdonald but not for the Prime minister? Also Her Majesty and Her Excellency have been taken off. I think the proper titles should be used therefore I’m going to add them back on. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 14:44, 8 May 2006 {UTC}

It shouldn't be used for Macdonald. Honourifics aren't used - see Michaëlle Jean, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Stephen Harper, and any other page on a monarch or occupant of a political office. As stated in hidden text at the top of Elizabeth II's article: "A discussion on Wikipedia produced an overwhelming consensus to end the 'style wars' by replacing styles at the start by a style infobox later in the text." Obviously a style infobox isn't needed on the Canada page, but on the pages dedicated to each individual. --gbambino 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Compared to Australia

I compared the length of certain sections with that of Austrlia, and this is what I got (++ means much longer, + means slightly longer, +/- about the same, - slightly shorter, -- much shorter):

Intro: +

Origin of the name: --

History: +/- (it's a good sign)

Politics: ++

Foreign Relations: +

Geography and Climate: - (Australia has a Fauna section which I'm including as part of this)

Economy: + (from -- before my edit) This could be shortened, but I wanted it to surpass the image height at a reasonable display resolution)

Demographics: +

Culture: --

This kind of tells us where we have to work on. Culture could be expanded, the Origin of the Name can be expanded (it kind of seems like a stub right now), and poltics could be shortened. -- Jeff3000 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat: while I also tend to compare this article -- and polity -- with that of Terra Australis, I believe we've charted an appropriate course of action in sxns above. Remember that everything isn't equal: for instance,

• the name origin sxn in the Australia article is longer than it is here partially because there is no dedicated subarticle: if you took a look at Canada's name, you'd realise it's anything but a stub (too top-heavy, but necessarily, regarding notions/usage of Dominion). :)
• the geography section is somewhat different for Australia due to the fact -- and ambiguity -- of it being a country, continent (in more ways than one: Australasia, Oceania), or unique ecozone ... all of which are somewhat dissimilar. Details in subarticles: this article no more requires a fauna sxn as much as it requires a flora sxn.
• I think we've been somewhat succinct regarding culture ... which is fine, because there's a dedicated subarticle (that should be enhanced) for that. :)

Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The culture section used to mention that many Canadian cultural products (movies, music) were succesful outside Canada. heqs 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I recall: I'm sure this can somehow be slid into the current article, perhaps briefly starting the 2nd paragraph? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we are different in many respects, I was just doing the comparison to see if we are in the ballpark, and except for politics, I think we are :) -- Jeff3000 12:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Great; I concur. Onward ...E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention Canadian literature. heqs 12:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

History section revert

Would anyone be against me reverting this edit in the history section. I think that info doesn't need to be there. -- Jeff3000 12:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I support you doing so. The population growth and Prime Minister party-affiliation information seems unnecessary. The mention of the UN is important, but it is already discussed in the Foreign Relations/Military section. --thirty-seven 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

done, -- Jeff3000 18:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The history section is thin on social history so the population information should stay and indeed be augmented. International readers do not know the party affiliations very well so that should stay. Rjensen 23:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the statistics on population growth, immigration rates, unemployment rates, etc are the sort of thing that are far too detailed for this article. Yes, international readers (and indeed, some Canadian ones) do not know party-affiliations of Prime Ministers, but that information should not be included in this article unless it is relevant. If a reader wants to know more about, say, Wilfred Laurier or his party affiliation, they can click on the wiki-link. I do like the sentence that Rjensen added about the CCF vs New Deal during the Depression. --thirty-seven 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with thirty-seven. Country articles in Wikipedia are in the summary style, they are not supposed to be an all-encompassing statement of fact. In particular they should link to main articles as is done. Note the Australia article which has reached featured article status. The history section is already too long. I will be shortening much of the info, which anyways best fits in other sections (such has economics, demographics, etc). -- Jeff3000 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Inline references

I think for the most part E Pluribus Anthony's comments about what we are missing before we try to become featured are covered except for the length of the Politics section, and the inline references. I was thinking that I could go through and put the tag whereever I thought we need an inline citation and hopefully together we could get rid of most of them. The problem with this scheme is that for a week or so the page will look sloppy due to the many tags throughout. But I think this is simplier than listing all the places were we need inline statements in the talk page. Thoughts? -- Jeff3000 05:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to comment on this before I go ahead adding a whole bunch of tags. -- Jeff3000 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Please go ahead. A ton of tags will look ugly for a while, but should spur people to put in proper references for this article. --thirty-seven 06:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've started the process by putting in the tags (usually at the end of the sentence where a fact is needed). I'll try to find sources for some of the statements, but help would not only be appreciated but needed. Thanks, -- Jeff3000 05:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Down to 12 references to be found. Hopefully we can get one done in a day. -- Jeff3000 03:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the United Empire Loyalist statement. So by your count, that should be 11 to go. --thirty-seven 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

please do not use tertiary sources for references. Not up to Wiki standards (the staff writers are not specialists in Canada). Much better is The Canadian Encyclopedia. Rjensen 10:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reference is better than none, so I'll revert the deletion of the reference. Please find a better one if you have one. -- Jeff3000 12:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: In this sentence:

Canadians worried about their cultural autonomy as American TV shows, movies and corporations became omnipresent, even taking over Molson beer in 2005.

is the citation needed tag regarding the assertion that Canadians worried about their cultural autonomy; that American TV shows, etc became omnipresent; or that Molson beer merged with an American company in 2005? --thirty-seven 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the first part of the sentence, the worrying about the cultural autonomy, needs a reference. -- Jeff3000 12:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Military references

Rjensen has added some military references to Canada/References which I'm greatful for, but I believe for the content on this page there are too many references. In the past there was too many references on Sports and it was cut down. They are not supposed to be all-encompassing. I've also reverted the addition of those references as Further reading in this article. A further reading section is amalgamated with references when there is a Notes section, as discussed already in Talk:Canada/Archive8#More reference talk and WP:CITE. Also given the short section on the Military in this page, the amount of Further reading he added was much too long. They should go in the appropriate main article. -- Jeff3000 13:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Govener General

This article seems to put the govener general above the prime minster. The govener general is just a formalade in Canada and holds no real power. She gets paid to go out wave her hand to a few people, and goes on living in her mansion.Just wanted to clear that up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.126.72 (talk • contribs) .

The Governor General functions as a stand-in for the Queen, and her role is thusly significant to Canadian lawmaking. Should a law be passed that she simply refuses to sign, the law would not be passed. She would be tried for treason, and a new general would be appointed and subsequently would sign the law in, but just because she is suplerfluous does not make her insignificant.--KefkaTheClown 05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Constitutionally, the Prime Minister is subordinate to the Governor General, and the Governor General has some power in minority government situations and other special circumstances. Peter Grey 06:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Most peacekeeping missions

I've been trying to find a reference that states that Canada has participated in the most peackeeping missions, and I haven't found one yet. There are some references that state that Canada has provided the most number of personnel in peacekeeping missions (see [4])

There also a statement in the Military History of Canada article stating "Canada participated in every UN peacekeeping effort from when they began until 1989, and has since then continued to play a major role." and attributes that to Desmond Morton's, A Military History of Canada. I can't make the leap from that statement to the fact that Canada has participated in the most peacekeeping missions (especially that recently, we haven't been participating that much at all).

Does anyone have a reference or have Morton's book to check it out for a more direct statement?. Thanks -- Jeff3000 04:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This article [5] states more than 50 peacekeeping missions but doesn't connect that to more than any other country. -- Jeff3000 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the statement to account for the Desmond Morton referenc from the Military History of Canada article. -- Jeff3000 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Government Type in infobox

This is currently listed as Federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. I think this might be too much information for the infobox. Based on a small sampling, it seems like a significant majority of the articles on other Commonwealth Realms simply say "Constitutional Monarchy". This is also true for most other European monarchies that I looked at, and Japan. Likewise, most articles for democratic republics say "Federal Republic" (USA, Germany, India), "Unitary Republic" (France), or just "Republic" (Italy). Portugal does say "Parliamentary Democracy".

I am in favour of shortening the description in the infobox to Federal constitutional monarchy.

This new phrase sounds good to me. -- Jeff3000 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As above, I've nixed the abbreviation 'const.' (which is rather cryptic) and replaced it with the spell-out 'constitutional': if we are concerned about the width of text in the infobox (which isn't problematic on my monitor), we should be focusing on other entries instead or resizing the entire box and text in it. Similarly, I've also reduced the font size of this line: it is now no longer (actually, only slightly) than a number of others below in the infobox. A the 0th | talk | 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The font size is not a good fix, as it has messed up the columns. Now the Monarch is Monarchy, The Governor General is Queen Elisabeth II, and the Prime minister has the amusing name of Michaëlle Jean Stephen Harper. -- TheMightyQuill 11:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So far I like this version the best. Notice how with the most recent version the line that delineates the infobox disappears beside the world map. -- Jeff3000 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I like that version the best too, but I could have a bias (it's my edit). You may want to check out Template talk:Infobox Country#New_style. There was a change in the style of the infobox design. The jury is still out on it.—MJCdetroit 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Party

I have deleted an awkward clause in the Government section that says that the COnservative Party "has formed governments in the past, as did its predecessor paries...." The modern Conservative Party is a new political party that was formed after the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party dissolved themselves. It is not the legal contiuation of either party. The PC Party wentr through several name changes during its long history, including Liberal-Conservative Party, Conservative Party, Unionist Party, and so on. But that party was dissolved in 2003. The sentence could have been re-worked to make reference to the modern COnservative Party's predecessors, but is it needed here? The section is about the current government, not about the history of Canada's government. I think the article is better off without this. Ground Zero | t 14:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, glad you took it out. -- Jeff3000 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Government: Unionist Party

A single-term 'Unionist' Party of Robert Borden was formed as a union of Conservatives and conscription-supporting Liberals during World War I.

While this is interesting, is it really relevant to the main Canada page, rather than Politics of Canada or History of Canada? -- TheMightyQuill 14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Quite right. It is too much detail for an overview article. Ground Zero | t 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, take it out. -- Jeff3000 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My Revert

Sorry I deleted a perfectly good copyedit... That was simply an editing conflict. ^iggy_talk 01:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

More Photos?

I think we need more images: One in the Foreign Relations & Military section, and one in the Economy section. I haven't yet been able to find anything that is suitable, and also bright and clear (to match with the other good photos in this article). --thirty-seven 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the page has enough photos. The extra photos will not fit in the sections, and will make them instead overlow to the next section. We already have one more photo than the Austrlia article. -- Jeff3000 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff. There are more than enough pictures on this page. More might overwhelm the text. Incidentally, though, I like the picture under economy... I've never got a chance to see the new $50 or $100 :-). ^iggy_talk 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Jeff3000. A the 0th | talk | 03:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should replace Image:Junobeach.jpg -- we have no idea where it originally came from. The source is just a link to its file location at www.toronto.ca. There are some Canadian WWII images at Commons. Also, I'm not thrilled about Image:MountLogan.jpg; it seems that we're just grabbing unfree content here because we like the picture. I can't find any images of Mt. Logan that are freely-licensed, though. Jkelly 04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we'll need to find free images, especially since I think this article is almost ready to apply for featured article status (a couple referenes to find). A discussion regarding images happened a couple months ago. That discussion can be found at Talk:Canada/Archive8#Images, Talk:Canada/Archive8#Images.2C_Part_II and Talk:Canada/Archive8#Bold_with_images. Maybe the Junobeach image can be replaced with something from more recent history of Canada (I don't have suggestions though). -- Jeff3000 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree. If we can't find a free image of Mt Logan, then perhaps another outstanding geological feature, like the Horseshoe Falls. Also, I'm the person who added the Juno Beach image. If we want to replace it with a similar, but free, photo, then I suggest Image:'Nan White' Beach, JUNO Area at Bernieres-sur-Mer.jpg. If we want something more recent, here are a few suggested topics: an image from the October Crisis, an Olympic Games held in Canada, the Queen signing the Constitution Act 1982. I'm sure there are many more possibilities. --thirty-seven 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of Juno Beach how about the Battle of the Somme? The Great War was the most devestating war for Canada and one of the country's greatest accomplishments so I figure a photo should be of it. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 17 May 2006 12:44 (UTC)

Here is a link to what we have for Canadian WWI forces. Jkelly 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

and here is a link to World War II pictures. I think that since World War II is more recent, (the picture is at the end of the History section), and that Canada entered the war on it's own, it makes more sense to have a WWII picture. I like this one Image:Canadian soldiers on Juno Beach.jpg because it is in colour. -- Jeff3000 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I put it up as a trial. What do we think of it? Jkelly 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In the article, I don't like it so much. The colours are faded. I retract my suggestion, unless other people like the image. -- Jeff3000 03:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad photo; it just doesn't fit into the article space-wise — also, why is it next to the paragraph on the Quiet Revolution? — rather gives a different image of the whole affair... ^iggy_talk 03:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Other possibilities

• Image:WLMK cabinet broadcasting address after British WWII declaration.jpg
• Image:Reconciliation-ottawa.jpg
• Image:Peacekeeping monument.jpg
• Image:CanadiansdestroyerDieppe.jpg -- Jeff3000 03:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think those are all excellent photos. I was sure that they were unfortunately all too "busy" to be easily discernable at the small size they would be given in this article (240px). However, I actually tried viewing them all as 240px thumbnails, and I was wrong - they look fine. The "Reconciliation" image is much too tall, but the other three are well proportioned. So of these 4 images, for the History section, I support either WLMK broadcasting or the soldiers on the destroyer - the image is currently located right after the mention of WWII. The peacekeeping monument image would be good if we need another image for the Foreign Rel. & Military section. --thirty-seven 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created a sandbox of the Foreign Relations and Military section that includes the Peacekeeping monument image. Please take a look to see if this looks appropriate for this article. --thirty-seven 05:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try the destroyer image, and see how that works out. The biggest problem with the current image is that it goes into the next section on a 1024x768 resolution. And the new image in Thirty-seven's version of the Foreign Relation looks good. I think we could have that image there. Any other comments? -- Jeff3000 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

. "I think that since World War II is more recent, (the picture is at the end of the History section), and that Canada entered the war on it's own, it makes more sense to have a WWII picture." The Great War was far more important for this country’s history than the Second World War. It was the first war of it's kind and the greatest war Canada fought. A lot more Canadians died in the Great War than the second and it was the first time that Canadians fought together with Canadians. Canada did far more in that war than the second and I think was more valuable. The Canadians were gassed, machine gunned, starved, and had to live in trenches throughout the year caked in mud and lice with rats eating their friends below their feet. WW2 had massive tanks and planes and other armoured vehicles. They didn't live in trenches and their objectives were clearer and the soldiers were far more prepared. Also it was during the Great Depression if there was no depression I doubt as many Canadians would have enlisted.Matthew Samuel Spurrell 18 May 2006 10:24 (UTC)

Military section

I know that this article should stay relatively brief, but if at all possible I would like to see the Military history expanded a little. Canadian participation in the Great War was a monumental event in Canadian history. We should mention that and link to some of the very famous battles like, Battle of the Somme, Second Battle of Ypres, Paschendale. Also, In Flander's Fields, Remembrance Day, etc. At the same time we shouldn't discount WW2. The fact that they had clear objectives is no kind of detriment. It was the first war in which they actively commanded operations. See Operation Totalise. Dieppe Raid, Italian Campaign (World War II), Attacks on Canadian mainland - think this might have had something to do with the amount of volunteers? Juno Beach (should be mentioned, the Canadians made great gains on the "day of days"), along with Battle of the Scheldt... I like Image:Reconciliation-ottawa.jpg and Image:Peacekeeping monument.jpg but I also propose Image:Canadian landings at Juno Beach.jpg and Image:Acrossthescheldt.jpg. Battle of Kapyong was a notable battle in Korea in which Canadian units distinguished themselves and was one of the last large scale battles Canadian forces had a large commitment in. heqs 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Canada recently celebrated/honored its own Year of the Veteran (2005...google it). Worth a mention? heqs 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think the history or military section should be expanded any more. I think they are longer than needed, and I still support shortening them. Everybody thinks different things are important, and if we added everything someone thought was important to the article, it would balloon in size. This article should be a summary style article, and in that spirit links to all the relevent information is available for those interested in the topics. -- Jeff3000 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and would be happy with an extra 20 words or so just mentioning one or two of the things I listed above. I may give this a try. heqs 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that this section is now more than a little crowded with images. Jkelly 17:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - see my post under Pictures below. --gbambino 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely crowded for such a small section. I think the peacekeeping monument is the weakest of the three images, but leaving only two military images doesn't give a very full picture of Canadian Foreign Relations. -- TheMightyQuill 17:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not supposed to give a full picture. The daughter articles are supposed to do that; this article should be in summary style. -- Jeff3000 17:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Summaries should be balanced though. The Juno Beach image gives better weight. That makes for 2 WW2 pics in the article though, one of them should be WW1. heqs 18:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

War images in history section

I propose Image:Canadian_tank_and_soldiers_Vimy_1917.jpg replace the post-combat dieppe raid photo in the history section, and include Image:Canadian landings at Juno Beach.jpg somewhere as well. I'm reluctant to replace the peacekeeping monument pic though. heqs 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made the proposed switch because no one objected. Not hung up on that particular pic though, I just think either it or the Juno pic are much stronger than Image:CanadiansdestroyerDieppe.jpg heqs 18:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone other than Jeff that opposes including both Image:Canadian_tank_and_soldiers_Vimy_1917.jpg and Image:Canadian landings at Juno Beach.jpg in the history section like I did here? I do not think that this overburdens the article with images. Thanks, heqs 14:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We already have two more images than Australia, which is the benchmark. It's the best featured country article there is. Another image will overburden the section, and remember this is a summary article, we don't have to include all aspects in the text or the in images. The most objected aspect of this article as it passed through the FAC (after the grammar, which was fixed) was the length of the history section. There were multiple editors who said it had to be shortened before they support. The question then becomes who supports adding more images to the text and making it longer?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeff3000 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 May 2006.

Actually, there was only one user on the FAC page other than yourself who said anything about the history section, or the whole article being too long. heqs 18:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No one else has agreed or disagreed with an additional image, so there is no consensus, and so the status quo still stays. -- Jeff3000 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't say there was consensus, this is just a case of 1 vs. 1 who is enforcing the "status quo". heqs 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Just so you know: A the 0th is a sockpuppet of E Pluribus Anthony as established by CheckUser Both have been active on this talk page. Andeggs 11:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Three inline references left

There are three inline references left to be found. These are in topics that either I don't know of online resources, or I don't have the required books to find. Can someone look into it, especially the one about amalgating the French (a good history book should have it). -- Jeff3000 14:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found the references, and we are done with the inline references. -- Jeff3000 02:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff3000! Thanks for driving the effort to add these necessary citations and, it seems, adding most of them yourself. --thirty-seven 08:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "Canada is the world's second-largest country in total area, after Russia." need a citation? Same with "Toronto, Ontario is one of the world's most multicultural cities." Not sure, so I thought I'd ask rather than putting a citation needed tag. -- TheMightyQuill 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch for the Toronto thing, I added some references for that. Canada being the second largest country is more common knowledge, and the general references take care of it. -- Jeff3000 18:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be Featured?

I think this article is now ready to be a Feature Article Candidate. Before I go ahead and list it, does anyone have any more problems with the page? -- Jeff3000 02:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The images claimed as "fair use" need fair use rationales. Jkelly 15:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The only ones that are fair use are the three people in the Politics section, and I think based on Talk:Australia#Queen_and_PM_photos I will remove the pictures. -- Jeff3000 15:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Jkelly 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think all citations should be moved outside punctuation per WP:FOOT#Style_recommendations. heqs 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make the necessary punctuation changes. -- Jeff3000 15:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like the history section kind of finishes up around the end of WWII - except for some mention of Quebec's wranglings with independence. What about Expo '67, the adoption of the Maple Leaf flag, the '82 patriation of the Constitution, etc.? We don't need detailed explanation of these events, but they're kind of important moments in Canadian history, no? --gbambino 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How bout a mention of the 2010 olympics. heqs 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It was already listed in the caption to the Vancouver picture, but I've added it to the text. AshleyMorton 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent history

I agree that recent history such as Expo '67 and possibly the bit about Draft dodgers should be included. These were both events with a significant effect on Canadian culture. As many as 90,000 draft dodgers moved to Canada. heqs 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Expo '67 was a singular effect, and does not have any lasting effects on Canada as a whole, and even Montreal slightly (with the Metro). The draft dodgers could fit in the Military section, but even then we all could think of details which we think are important; those should be placed in the daughter articles. The text is long enough as it is. -- Jeff3000 18:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Montreal is still paying off the Big Owe, and it also had lasting positive effects too. So did Expo 86, but these could both be seen as more regional in nature. American Draft dodgers are not a Canadian military issue but a historical/cultural one. If you don't think those 90,000 peace-minded young men, at least 50,000 who stayed permanently had a significant effect on Canadian culture and politics, you're kidding yourself. heqs 18:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course the draft-dodges had an effect; the point is that the History section is already too long for a summary article. That information should be in the daughter articles (I hope it's there, and if it isn't you should post it there). -- Jeff3000 18:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you keep saying that. What's being discussed here is that the summary is out of proportion. There shouldn't be a vacuum of recent information. heqs 18:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the article (everything but the history section) is recent information. If you feel strongly, take something else out, before you put something new in. I personally don't think it has that much effect on Canada. -- Jeff3000 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture of the Mountie is from Expo '67. We could mention it in the caption. Jkelly 18:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Expo '67 was regarded as the beginning of Canada's "coming of age" in the post-war years - it brought 50 million visitors to Montreal, probably the largest number of tourists we'd seen to that point, and including Charles de Gaulle, Jackie Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and a host of other world leaders. It was actually a very significant point in the country's recent development, part and parcel with the new flag, and a broader range of ethnicities amongst immigrants. --gbambino 18:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Further, if the movement of 50,000 UELs to Canada warrants a mention, why is the influx of 90,000 draft dodgers ignored? I realise we need to be consise in this article, but the post WWII history is seriously lacking, where as the pre is much fuller. Canada changed drastically in the 60s and 70s - something has to be mentioned about it. --gbambino 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Each person has their opinion on what is important, case in point Expo 67 and draft-dodgers, that's why the best way to deal with it, is to put that content in the daughter articles. -- Jeff3000 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but a) there's no link to any daughter article, and b) then by that logic the mention of UEL movement north should be omitted as well. This doesn't address the lack of post WWII history. --gbambino 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

They probably deserve at least a one-liner. heqs 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The daughter articles are in the article as

Main articles: History of Canada, Timeline of Canadian history

A one-liner in the right place could work. -- Jeff3000 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, what can summarise the social changes in Canada after the end of the second World War? Commonly it seems to be:

• Changing demographic and culture after mass immigration from Europe, esp. countries that went communist or fascist during or just after the war
• The growth of a new Canadian nationalism, as displayed through things like the new flag and Expo '67.
• The shift of economic and political power bases from rural to urban areas.

This could, of course, be summed up in a paragraph or two, I think. --gbambino 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the waves of 20th century immigration could possibly be identified a little better, including Trudeau and post-Trudeau. heqs 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the loyalists and the draft-dodgers is the percentage of the population. I don't know what the population of British North America was around the American revolution, but it couldn't have been more than a million or so. The population of Canada in the early 70s, was around 22 million. So we would need 1.1 million draft-dodgers for it to be of similar effect. -- Jeff3000 19:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty widely accepted that the draft dodgers effected canadian culture and politics though. In BC they practically colonized whole areas on the coast and islands. I can dig up some sources on this if needed. heqs 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ref added for draft dodgers: CBC Archives (according to them, "they changed their adopted nation unquestionably") Other interesting link for ya: Tyee article (The town of Nelson, BC recently considered erecting a monument to american draft dodgers. It was rejected by city council)

I never claimed they did not have an effect, but the point is that this page is a summary article, and as Jkelly has posted below is twice the recommended length. These details really deserve being mentioned in the daughter articles. I would really like to shorten the history section altogether. It is too long, and has too many blue links making it disracting to read. -- Jeff3000 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's shorten and convert some of the other historical items to one-liners then... heqs 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shortening does not mean to make everything one liners, but instead trying to be discerning, and not talking about everything. -- Jeff3000 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

One possible edit is to shorten the list of things that helped increase support for Quebec independence (I think the list is too long and detailed for a summary article), and add one or two concise sentences on increased immigration, the growth of nationalism, and the shift of power (which is debatable, given the recent election results). -- Jeff3000 19:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Quebec sovereignty issue is too specifically covered - taking two whole paragraphs. In the meantime, I've summed up Canada's changes in the 60s in one paragraph. --gbambino 19:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent History could include something on the creation of Nunavut, with Consensus Government, and two extra official languages, Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun. They should also be reflected in the languages section. The Nunavut page says French is also an official language of the territory. Is that true? -- TheMightyQuill

Referendums in Quebec in 1980 and 1995 saw 59.6% and 50.6% of voters reject proposals for sovereignty-association. Actually, only the first referendum was on "sovereignty-association" - the second made no mention of it. -- TheMightyQuill 16:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to all involved. Jkelly 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks to all. :) -- Jeff3000 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I'm not sure how important it is for achieving Featured Article status, but doesn't it seem as though the article is getting clogged with pictures? It seems especially bad in the Foreign relations and miltary, Language, and culture sections. --gbambino 17:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, I removed the recently added military picture, and I would agree with the removal of more pictures. -- Jeff3000 17:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There've been plenty of FAs on the main page with more images than this. Anyway, I propose swapping the peacekeeping monument for Juno Beach, squishing the table in Provinces and territories if at all possible and slightly reducing the geopolital map and satellite pic. heqs 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the totem pole image might be more appropriate than the Vancouver one - there are three city images on the page now (Toronto, Montreal & Vancouver), and none representing First Nation peoples. --gbambino 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the totem pole picture is better than one of the three city pictures, but it doesn't seem to fit anywhere. The Toronto picture represents multi-culturalism, the Montreal picture the language issue, and Vancouver slightly sports. We could remove Vancouver now that the text of the caption is in the main section. I guess the totem pole could fit in the culture section, instead of Vancouver. -- Jeff3000 18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'd thought - replace Van with the totem pole in Culture. --gbambino 18:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Provinces & Territories

I'm not sure what the problem with my edit was. How did it affect the following section? As far as I could see the Geography and climate section remained identical after my condensing of Provinces and territories. Frankly, its reverted form looks terrible. --gbambino 18:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll post a screenshot in a second. -- Jeff3000 18:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a screeshot Image:Canadascreenshot.jpg. I'm going to ask for a speedy delete of this image in a couple days. -- Jeff3000 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh - that looks much different to what I see on my screen. And here I thought I'd found a way to condense all that white space. Does anyone with better knowledge than I on these things know of a way to tighten that section up? --gbambino 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to post such screenshots to an external free image host. heqs 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What about getting rid of the table, it already exists in the Provinces and territories of Canada page. -- Jeff3000 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a possibility. Other articles on federated countries (Australia, United States) don't include such tables. --gbambino 19:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If possible, I think we should keep the table. --thirty-seven 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be truncated column-wise. Too unweildy. With the image, the section will be a mess to anyone viewing on a resolution lower than 1152x864. heqs 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, though I like the chart, the more I think about it, the more I feel Jeff3000's suggestion is best: its information should be merged with one of the two charts on the Provinces and territories of Canada page. The Canada article is long, and the chart, combined with all the white-space it creates, doesn't help at all. Also, as I said already, other articles on federal countries (ie. Australia, which I believe has been a featured article) don't include such tables. --gbambino 20:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I must say there is a pretty good case for breaking with convention and including such a table given the vastness of the country and clear political, historical, and geographic distinctions between provinces. If there were 30 or 40 of them, maybe not. heqs 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight it tooth and nail, but, though Australia certainly doesn't have anything akin to Quebec, the country is almost as large and diverse. As well, how important is it that we have the time zone differences, and Senate regions in this article? Perhaps a simple list of provinces, their flag, and date of entry into Confederation is all that's necessary. --gbambino 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. heqs 22:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

But with a low resolution, the text should extend down past the bottom of the image, so there should not be a mess. --thirty-seven 20:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Crowded tables and images, and images with other images sometimes overlap before falling in line. heqs 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a big problem with the new table, anyone with a resolution width of less that 1030 (I measured using Firefox) will get a horizontal scrollbar. This is not only bad Wikipedia practice, it's bad web design. We need to make the table fit in at least 800px. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The new, simplified table of provinces and territories looks good, but it is too wide. I don't think we can get it to fit properly simply by shrinking the text. Also, if possible, the geopolitical map should be returned to a larger size. --thirty-seven 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Down to 937px before it causes a horizontal scroll-bar, still need to shrink it. Also yes, I think the geopolitical map should be made bigger. -- Jeff3000 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm obviously a bit of an amateur with the whole table thing. --gbambino 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I believe we should remove the table. The horizontal table was a good idea, but it just doesn't fit unless the text is unreadable. -- Jeff3000 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, this section should list and link all the provinces and territories, as the US and Australia articles do. If we are not also listing their geographical and political regions, perhaps they could be listed by official precedence. --thirty-seven 00:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Did you ever consider you should say something to readers as to why you wish to order the provinces by seemingly non logical order? If you had just put ", in order of confederation" or something it would be a useful ordering. Otherwise it just looks random and useless. Deusfaux 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Provincial opt-out of federal programs

From the Provinces and Territories section: The federal government can initiate national policies that the provinces opt out of, but this rarely happens in practice. I think this statement if ambiguous. What rarely happens in practice: that the federal government initiates such programs that the provinces can opt out of, or that provinces do opt out of such programs? --thirty-seven 19:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's that provinces can opt-out. Can you fix the problem with a more concise statement? -- Jeff3000 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

British Treasury in History section

The economy boomed during the war, as Canada grew closer to the United States and even began subsidizing the British Treasury.

What the heck is the British Treasury? heqs 19:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's HM Treasury. That info was added recently, and we don't have a citation. I think we should remove it. -- Jeff3000 19:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Geography

What about giving a quick rundown of the Category:terrestrial biomes in Canada? e.g. everything from tundra to Temperate rain forest. This seems to be missing from the daughter article, but it seems like the natural basic info to include. heqs 19:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please include it in the daughter articles, which is the natural place for it to be in. -- Jeff3000 19:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point everyone back up to the top of the page, in the red box which states:

"Notice: This overview article is already too long. It is not intended to discuss all issues related to Canada, but serve only as an introduction. Before you add material to this article, please consider adding it instead to one of the many "main" articles linked from this article, e.g., Politics of Canada, Geography of Canada, etc. Thank you." -- Jeff3000 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. We're close to double what we should be right now, and that is with the references in a subpage. Jkelly 20:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonial First Nations???

From the article: "Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by English, French, Irish, Scottish, and First Nations cultures and traditions." Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by... First Nations cultures? No. Clearly that doesn't make sense. So I've put a "better" revision in there, but I expect it to be "edited mercilessly".AshleyMorton 04:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as that. See for instance Métis people (Canada). Now it reads as if First Nations culture is extinct ("previously extant"). Surely, there have been widespread attempts to assimilate or eliminate aborignial culture, but it still exists and the ways the colonial and aboriginal cultures influenced eachother (and continue to...) are subtle and complex. I'm changing it back to the previous wording unless someone has a better proposal. heqs 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think both of your concerns are valid. How about taking out "Due to it's colonial past" and, if you want to refer to the Metis, changing First Nations to Aboriginal peoples in Canada? -- TheMightyQuill 07:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. heqs 08:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada references

Please discuss changes before changing the format of the references. There has already been discussion, and the manual of style is a guideline, not a policy. -- Jeff3000 14:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mav is constantly removing the subpage, and pointing that a decision has been made regarding subpages. But he has not shown any verifiable proof, just hearsay. The Wikipedia MOS regarding subpages is a guideline, because not all cases may work. I have done all the reverting I can, so I can't revert his changes any longer. He has one more left, so if he does revert, someone else that believes the subpage works better has to bring back the subpage. -- Jeff3000

Note that Wikipedia:Subpages#Allowed uses is a guideline. Regarding the difference between a guideline and policy is as quoted on that page, "Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus.". Mav is going against a previous consensus, without any discussion. -- Jeff3000 15:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada/References has been put up for deletion. Please add your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada/References -- Jeff3000 15:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the discussion on the AFD page, it seems like the Canada/References page will be deleted, and so I'll stick with that and have the references on this page, but regarding the deletion of the locations of publication, why delete information that makes the reference more correct. The correct citation style is to include the location, when it is known. -- Jeff3000 22:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

the location information is misleading for major publishers (like Oxford for example) because it falsely suggests the book was published out of England when it was really the Toronto or NY office. Some users get mislead seriously, andnone get helped. Most major houses have multiple \offices and on this particular topic whether a book is British, American or Canadian makes a difference. Rjensen 03:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. If a book was published by Oxford out of it's Toronto office, then the publisher would be noted as Oxford University Press out of (Don Mills, or Toronto). But also, you were removing locations such as East Lansing from the University of Michigan; I doubt there would be any confusion there. Regardless of any confusion (which I highly doubt would confuse anyone, or be important to anyone) it is correct and complete academic style to have the locations in the reference; not including the locations when the information is known is just plain sloppy. -- Jeff3000 03:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

locations are optional in the computer age. can anyone explain their value? they can hurt but not help. Rjensen 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In academic referencing style, which BTW Wikipedia uses, the location is not optional (if known). In my opinion they do not hurt at all, but help by adding to Wikipedia's credibility by making the works correctly cited. -- Jeff3000 03:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The editors have to be positive the books where the book was actually edited or there is trouble. In academic refs, city is optional--most enyclopedia omit them. Rjensen 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already done the work, I've checked every reference with WorldCatLibraries. The publisher of the work when submitting for an ISBN has to give all the fields. You can check any book out given an ISBN, which I've done. One example is [6]. So I'm positive the locations are correct. Look at Harvard referencing, the location is a must. -- Jeff3000 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Heading deficiencies

There are too many and some can be put under others such as "provinces" under "geography", "foreign relations" under "government" and "holidays" can be put under "culture" if it even needs to have a place. Skinnyweed 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries style, which is what all country articles should be striving for. In regards to provinces there needs to be a Subdivisions section (named what the subdivions are called in that country, in Canada's case Provinces). Holiday's also needs to be its own section. Foreign relations can be in the Government section or in a Miscellaneous section. Other featured country articles such as Australia have started the trend to make it its own section, and since we don't have a miscellaneious section, it is made it's own section. -- Jeff3000 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove Holidays section?

In the featured article nomination page, Peta states that most recently featured countires don't have the holiday section, do people think this adds much to an article? If this is true, I think we should remove the Holiday section. I had thought that this section was a requirement imposed on the Canada article by some template/standard that needed to be met in order to achieve featured article status. Generally, Canadian holidays are not especially noteworthy or different compared to other Western, historically-Christian, nations. Canada Day/Dominion Day is already mentioned in the article. Remembrance Day could be mentioned in the Military section, if contributors think that would be worthwhile. --thirty-seven 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The holidays section is a recommendation of the the countries wikiproject. I'm not sure if it useful, and wouldn't mind removing it. So far there is only one person complaining about the holidays, while someone else wanted it longer, so let's see what other's say. -- Jeff3000 04:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Monarch

Since Canada is a completely separate kingdom from the United Kingdom is it correct to call Queen Elizabeth of Canada Elizabeth II as this article on Canada does? Because Canada never had a monarch called Elizabeth before her, so she is not really Elizabeth II in Canada. There have been similiar situations like this in personal unions, when two completely separate kingdoms share the same monarch. When King James VI of Scotland became King of England and King of Ireland in 1603 he was still called James VI in Scotland but he was just called James in England and in Ireland because those two kingdoms were still completely separate from Scotland and they had never had a king called James before. And when King Henry VIII of England became King of Ireland in 1541 he was still called Henry VIII in England but he was technically just Henry in Ireland because the two kingdoms were still technically completely separate from each other and Ireland had never had a king called Henry before. FDR 11:11 PM May 22 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length since it is true of every kingdom of which she is Queen except England. In fact it caused pillar boxes bearing the EIIR moniker in Scotland to come under attack for a while in the 1950s. As I recall the conclusion of the discussion was that she can call herself what she likes and as it seems that she wants to be known as Elizabeth II in all the countries of which she is Queen, her governments have made II her official regnal number. Thus even in countries where logically she is Elizabeth I, legally she is Elizabeth II. Wikipedia is merely following official practice in calling her Elizabeth II. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the resolution of the situation you describe regarding Scotland was that they came up with the rule that all monarchs of the UK would take as their 'number' the highest number they would have been entitled to in any of the constituent countries. So, for example, based on this scheme if there is a future King James of the UK, he would be King James VIII. However, this numbering scheme does not directly address FDR's point, since Scotland and England are no longer separate kingdoms in a personal union. --thirty-seven 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she does call herself that, but if she does that is not correct. Because King James VI of Scotland when he became King of England and King of Ireland in 1603 called himself James in those two kingdoms instead of James VI and when King Henry VIII of England became King of Ireland in 1541 he called himself Henry in that kingdom instead of Henry VIII. FDR | Talk 12:19 AM, May 23 2006 (UTC)

The Queen is called Elizabeth II in Canada in everyday usage, in formal usage, and in legal usage. You make a good case that this might be incorrect in terms of royal naming/numbering rules, but that is irrelevant to the Canada article. If anywhere, it should be mentioned in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Monarchy in Canada. --thirty-seven 05:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My quarter says, "ELIZABETH II D.G. (Dei Gratia) REGINA". Latin for Elizabeth II by God's Grace Queen. If it's good enough for the Canadian government to stamp Elizabeth the second on their coins—it's good enough for wikipedia.—MJCdetroit 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And incidentally her title is not Queen of England, which came out of use in 1707 because of the Act of Union, but Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And your mentioning Scotland was not relevant to what we are arguing about because that is part of the United Kingdom. FDR 12:22 AM, May 23 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore, the reason why the Canadians and the other Commonwealth realms call her Elizabeth II is that their monarchies are in no way independent of the British, whatever legal fiction might say. TharkunColl 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so their monarchies are still British, huh? That would mean that they are still British colonies, which they obviously are not. Why can you not understand a personal union, its a simple concept. When two completely separately and independent kingdoms share the same monarch. Read Wikipedia's article about it. It is possible for two completely separate kingdoms to have the same monarch and still be separate. FDR 10:26 PM May 24 2006 (UTC)

• This is one of the charming consequences of having one person fill 16 head-of-state jobs. The numbering goes from whichever number was highest, regardless of where. Thus, since there has already been a Elizabeth I of England, the next one (of Canada, of the UK, of wherever) is Elizabeth II. The rule does not apply, however, before 1707. (I suppose a monarch named Louis would have to be King Louis XVI, because Canada has already had a Louis XV.) Peter Grey 23:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Canada has had no monarchs called Louis. French kings of that name certainly ruled/reigned over territories that are now part of Canada, but there is no constitutional continuity. One might as well say that England has had a monarch named Nero. TharkunColl 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada is not a kingdom

The only examnple that can be cited for describing it as a kingdom is a 19th century document that was rejected. In what way is Canada a kingdom? After all, it has no independent monarchy of its own. TharkunColl 23:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Macdonald's wish to see the country named the Kingdom of Canada was not rejected due to it being wrong, but rather because it was felt that such a name would agitate the republic to the south (which had already tried to conquer and annex the Canadian colonies more than once). What it does is clearly illustrate that even before Canada was sovereign it could legitimately have been called a kingdom by name. So, here's a better question: how is Canada not a kingdom? --gbambino 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

two points: the Americans could care less about Canada as "kingdom." Second, the term has had some usage among scholars: see: William Kilbourn, Editor Canada A Guide to the Peaceable Kingdom (1970); W L Morton The Kingdom of Canada: A General History (1963) by a leading scholar; and Turmoil in the Peacable Kingdom: The Quebec Sovereignty Movement & Its Implications for Canada & the U. S. (ISBN: 0802069703) by Lemco, Jonathan (1994)Rjensen 02:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they could care less now, but it was felt by the Brits that they would in 1865.

But thanks for the references, those are quite useful. --gbambino 02:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you mean couldn't care less - what you actually wrote makes no sense. Those books you cite are not legal or constitutional documents, and judging by the context are clearly using the term metaphorically (the British state has, I believe, been called "the best disguised republic in the world" - that doesn't mean it actually is a republic). As for the Brits feeling that the Americans would care what term was used in the 1860s - I find this difficult to believe and unless someone can provide historical sources for this assertion I shall remove the whole paragraph. The fact remains, that for whatever reason, the proposal to call Canada a kingdom was rejected. You may wish to argue that this was in deference to U.S. opinion - maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - but the proposal was still rejected, and Canada never received the title of "kingdom". Your argument, Gbambino, is that any country with a king or queen is a kingdom - I understand your argument, but it is simply not true. Ancient Sparta, Carthage, and Rome each continued to have kings even after they became republics. Conversely, both Spain and Greece in the 20th century spent periods when they were legally and constitutionally kingdoms, but had no monarch. Basically, the status of "kingdom" can only be determined by reference to statute - something that you are fond of quoting when it comes to the legal position of the crown in Canada - which means that a "kingdom" is a state which so descrbes itself constitutionally. Canada does not. Therefore, it isn't. TharkunColl 08:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A reference to a Senator explaining why the name "Kingdom of Canada" was rejected: [7]

There are numerous references which explain why the name Kingdom of Canada was rejected - look at the one cited in Canada's name, for example. Nowhere is it said the proposed name was dismissed because it was technically incorrect; only because it was felt by the British colonial office that it was too grandiose for a newly born nation north of a militarily aggressive republic.

A republic cannot be headed by a king, and a kingdom with a vacant throne is still a kingdom. But, regardless, you've still declined to give a valid explanation of what Canada is if it is not a kingdom. You've asserted that it is a dominion, which, technically, it is (a dominion of the Canadian monarch); but that doesn't negate the fact that dominion and kingdom essentially mean the same thing. Dominion's root is dominus, or power, and as a noun also means domain. [8] A domain is a "complete and absolute ownership of land," or "a territory over which dominion is exercised." [9] Note also that the definition of kingdom is "a realm or region in which something is dominant" (again, dominant from dominus) [10]; in this case, a king or queen. Even in French, the word kingdom is translated to royaume; ie. realm.

Note the common threads? - power, dominion, realm, kingdom. What is Canada? - a Realm, a Dominion, and therefore also a kingdom.

Where you're all messed up is believing that Canada is still a dominion of the British Crown, when in all senses it clearly is not. As Canada is completely sovereign it is only a dominion of the distinct Canadian Crown, and therefore a dominion, realm, and kingdom of the Queen of Canada. --gbambino 16:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all I would like to request that you do not call my arguments "inane", as you did on another talk page. My point really is quite simple, which you appear unwilling to grasp for some reason. Canada is not a kingdom because it does not describe itself as such. "Dominion" and "kingdom" are most certainly not synonymous in English, as any number of linguistic constructs will show. E.g. "Hitler's dominion gradually spread over most of continental Europe." Exchange "dominion" for "kingdom" in that sentence and you create nonsense, or at the very least a factual inaccuracy. Whether you like it or not, the 19th century proposal to call Canada a kingdom was rejected in favour of dominion. TharkunColl 17:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of kingdom on dictionary.com "A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign." Definition of kingdom on Merriam-Webster.com "a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen". Canada is a political unit. Canada is ruled by a sovereign. Canada has a monarchical form of government head by a king or queen. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. -- Jeff3000 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that won't work. Canada is not ruled by a king or queen. It is "ruled" (if that is the right word) by a governor general who exercises all the powers of the monarch. The monarch herself has no power there and is also absent. TharkunColl 17:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the monarch in Canada has all the powers, but allows her duties to be performed by the Governor General. All powers of State are constitutionally reposed in the Monarch, who is represented at the federal level by the Governor General of Canada. The monarch is still officialy the source of that power, and can wield it, if they so choose. Thus they still "rule". -- Jeff3000 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if your argument isn't inane, then it's certainly self-contradictory. By your logic the UK cannot be a realm or a dominion because it doesn't describe itself as the United Realm, or the United Dominion; yet, at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom you said: "As for the UK being a dominion of the British crown - well, what do you expect? The UK is the home of the British crown!"

Further, the Canadian constitution still clearly states that all executive authority continues to be vested in the Queen, and even the 1947 Letters Patent that permit the Governor General to exercise almost all the powers of the sovereign state that those powers still lawfully belong to the monarch. Canada isn't called the Governor Generalcy of Canada either.

Face it, unless you can contest the clear logic outlined in Jeff3000's post above, your argument that Canada is not a kingdom doesn't have a leg to stand on. --gbambino 17:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to step up in 'opposition' to the use of "kingdom" as well. Here's how my thought process works: First, do a thought experiment - picture yourself asking 10 people on the street whether Canada is a "kingdom". I believe that most would say no, at least right off the bat. Now, that doesn't prove anything. However, what it does is establish on which side of this argument the burden of proof lies. The question "how is Canada not a kingdom?", used in the argument above, is therefore out the window. I do not need to prove to anyone that the moon 'does' orbit the earth - that's, currently, accepted knowledge. If there were honest debate on thtat topic, it would be the other side who had to prove their point.

...and the only tools we are allowed to use here are those of reference - a good logical flow based on definitions (such as "Realm = dominion = kingdom") is irrelevant - that's original research, at best. It might be able to establish that it "should" be called a kingdom, or even that whoever did not call it a kingdom in the first place was an idiot. What it cannot do is force Canada to be a kingdom.

In addition, to tag on another counterexample, even India, when under direct colonial rule, was not a kingdom. Victoria was the Queen of the United Kingdom, but the Empress of India - because India was part of the Empire, not the Kingdom. AshleyMorton 17:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Read above to find numerous examples where consitutional scholars and historians use the words "kingdom" and "Canada" together.

As noted, they are in the titles of books. If you can find me a place where such a historian says that Canada is a kingdom, not just uses the words together, then I will defer. I don't want to use inflammatory examples, but in titles of books, for effect, any type of author, including historians, might use the phrase "Dictatorship of...", for example, without seriously arguing that, factually, that place is a dictatorship. AshleyMorton 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And the titles of books by constitutional experts and historians somehow don't count? Beyond that, the words "kingdom of Canada" are used within the body John Farthing's "Freedom Wears a Crown".

I have never heard of taking a book title that is not even a statement, and suggesting that it is, in fact a statement of fact from which to build an argument

If a book on the history or constitutional structure of a country were titled "The Dicatorship of.." then I would most certainly believe that the author was stating that the country being studied was indeed a dictatorship.

2) Jeff3000 provided definitions of the word "kingdom," and how it logically applies to Canada. What is being asked for is an explanation of how it cannot be so.

As you'll notice, I spoke about that (arguments that you don't address). I believe that the burden of proof cannot be laid on the not-kingdom side (as you're suggesting), because it is the commonly held side.

That Canada is not a kingdom is by no means the commonly held side.

3) The fact that realm, dominion and kingdom are all synonymous is not original research.

They are not exactly parallel. England is not a dominion. The Isle of Man, for instance, is not even technically part of the "United Kingdom" - it's a "crown dependency". The point there is that there are a lot of different versions of "I report to Elizabeth II" - most of which are not styled (and therefore not properly called) "kingdoms".

AshleyMorton 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

England is a dominion, just not titled the Dominion of England. Any territory of a monarch can be called a dominion, despite it's official name. This is similar for describing a country as a kingdom whether or not it's called the "Kingdom of...".

Okay, maybe we're getting somewhere - here's another experiment - go over to the article on England, and refer to it somewhere as a dominion. I think you'll find that even if it can be defined as such, someone would change it because it isn't the best way to talk about the thing.

One could easily insert a point that England is a dominion of the British Crown - there's nothing contestable about it. But one could not claim that England is called the "Dominion of England." Similarly, to say Canada's name is the "Kingdom of Canada" is as wrong as saying it's the "Dominion of Canada" - which many people have attempted to do here. However, to say that Canada became an independent kingdom with the patriation of the constitution is neither inaccurate, nor wildly controvercial. As has been shown, it's not the first time. --gbambino 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

4) Victoria was not Empress of Canada. Elizabeth II is now separately Queen of Canada.

I agree that Elizabeth II is Canada's Queen. What I think the point of contention here is whether that *AUTOMATICALLY* makes Canada a "kingdom".AshleyMorton 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and so far nobody has proven it doesn't.

5) Popular ignorance does not accuracy make. --gbambino 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but popular "opinion" does a burden of proof create.AshleyMorton 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. Opinions of those ignorant on the topic mean nothing to what is true and what is not. --gbambino 19:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and that's not what I said. I didn't say that popular opinion (because you're equating the side I've defended with "popular ignorance", and I'd rather stick with a neutral term) made them right. I said it put the burden of proof on the other side.

Actually, it puts the burden of proof on nobody - either way the majority of people simply don't know (that's what I meant by popular ignorance), so the answer they offer does nothing to verify what's right and what's wrong. Many people might think Greenland is a part of Canada, but that doesn't make it right, nor should we start writing articles hiding the fact that Greenland is a territory of Denmark just so it suits popular opinion. --gbambino 19:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

However, to be completely honest, I don't think this is really a necesary fight. Even those of us who oppose are not suggesting that the article say "Canada is not a kingdom." Edit history bears this out.

Beside, in an encyclopedic sense, is there any need to include this specific word? I'd like to propose "monarchy" or some other possibility to replace, because I think it's clear that that sentence is really about the country becoming sovereign, not about it becoming a kingdom. Can there be some sort of compromise that will fit within your beliefs? AshleyMorton 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Another fallacy in your argument, AshleyMorton, is that you compared India under Victoria to the current Canadian monarchy. India was merely a British colonial possession. Canada is a completely independent country. It is not a valid comparison. FDR 2:14 PM May 25, 2006 (UTC)

Dominion and kingdom are not synonymous. A dominion is a country with a governor general who exercises powers on behalf of an absentee monarch. A kingdom is a country where a monarch has no intermediaries, and exercises her constitutional powers in her own person. As for the queen still having powers in Canada, could she sack the governor general and rule in her own right? Of course not. The Canadian constitution simply wouldn't allow it. A country with a monarch who lives half way across the world in another country, and who exercises no powers, is not a kingdom by any reasonable definition. It is no accident that a new term, dominion, was invented to describe the situation. TharkunColl 18:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• • could she sack the governor general and rule in her own right? Technically, yes. The constitution would allow it, under the right circumstances.
  • Dominion wasn't a newly created word in 1867.
  • Once more: if a kingdom is a "politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen," explain how Canada is not a kingdom. The lack of ability to do so is your main (though, by no means only) failing point. --gbambino 18:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me first state that I am not a monarchist, or an anti-monarchist, so I'm not taking a side on the whole monarchy issue (as I don't think it matters in any real sense), but your arguments in this case just don't pass logical muster. Based on the dictionary.com definition the monarch needs to "rule", and constitutionally the monarch has those powers. More interestingly, however, is that based on the merriam-webster defintion, there is no notion of rule, but just that it have a monarchical form of government, and I doubt you can argue against that one. -- Jeff3000 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes I can. The person who discharges all the powers and duties of head of state in Canada is an appointed politician. His office is neither for life, and nor is it hereditary. He is chosen by the elected government. That doesn't sound much like a monarchical form of government to me. Why on earth is anybody trying to squeeze Canada into medieval European models? Why can't it be something new and different? Neither a republic or a kingdom, but something else? TharkunColl 18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Constitution Act, 1867; III, Executive Power:

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

10. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated.

Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada; Effective October 1, 1947; "GEORGE R.":

II. And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada.

--gbambino 19:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am, if anything a monarchist (for what it's worth). Still, I don't believe Canada is a "kingdom". But, again, the real problem, for me, is the desperate need to put this word in this sentence. It is contentious - anyone who says otherwise isn't listening. But the sentence is about Canada becoming independent - "sovereign" - not about it being a kingdom. Why can't we just say that, bypass this whole argumentand get on with all of our lives? AshleyMorton 18:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada is a constitutional monarchy, which is by definition a form of monarchical government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an elected or hereditary monarch as head of state. That the monarchy plays a largely ceremonial role, does not invalidate the definition of a constitutional monarchy or that it is a monarchical government.

On a side note, I think it could be made more explicit in the text just how ceremonial the GG's/Queen's role is. heqs 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Ashley's comments, the original word in the sentence was kingdom, so Ashley please address your comments to TharkunColl. -- Jeff3000 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand why I'm to address my comments to TharkunColl?AshleyMorton 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I would be happy with "dominion", or "constitutional monarchy", or any of a number of other terms that do fully describe our country. I think "kingdom" sticks out like a sore thumb, and is actually incorrect. My friend here on this side of the screen just suggested another reason why: In most colonial situations, the "Kingdom" is the core, "original" country or territory, and the added territory is referred to by a number of other names. Kingdom of Spain, not Kingdom of Bolivia. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (historical reference), not Kingdom of India, nor Kingdom of Barbados, nor Kingdom of Canada. At most they were "part of a Kingdom", but never simply "a Kingdom" - that usage implies primacy.AshleyMorton 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Because two people who clearly don't understand the situation say kingdom is incorrect does not make it so. That you don't understand is demonstrated in the fact that (beyond the fact that India was actually titled as the Empire of India) you somehow believe Canada is "added territory" to the British Crown. One thing that needs to be made absolutely clear to both you, Ashley, and TharkunColl, is that Canada has no links to the UK any longer, despite the fact that the two independent, sovereign kingdoms share the same monarch.

If Canada is a sovereign nation that is a "politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen," then the question still remains: how can Canada not be a kingdom?

Cited examples of the use of the word "kingdom" to describe Canada have been given, the definition of kingdom as applicable to Canada has been given, so the burden of proof remains on those who somehow think this evidence doesn't sufficiently prove that Canada is indeed, a kingdom. --gbambino 19:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada has no links to the UK any longer, despite the fact that the two independent, sovereign kingdoms share the same monarch. Can you not appreciate that you have contradicted yourself in the same sentence? Is it pure coincidence that out of all the billions of people on earth, the Canadians should have picked for their titular head of state the one person who also just happens to be queen of the UK - Canada's historical colonial power? Of course not! Canada is not a kingdom because it has no monarch of its own, and is still totally dependent on the British to supply them (it could, of course, change this at any time). TharkunColl 20:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Then the UK is not a kingdom either, as it no longer has a monarch of its own, and out of all the billions of people on Earth, the UK cannot pick for their head of state a person who doesn't "just happen" to also be monarch of Canada (remember, they share their monarch with us as much as we share ours with them - Ontario Superiour Court Justice Rouleau called it a symmetrical relationship). But I'm sure we can all see the fallacy in that argument.

Still waiting for you to disprove the point that Canada is "a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen." --gbambino 20:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are not getting gbambino's statement. The Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom are two seperate positions. That they happen to be currently residing in the same person is besides the point. Canada has a monarch, and thus fits the defintion of kingdom, regardless of if it's official desingation is not "Kingdom of Canada". Being a kingdom has nothing to do with an official designation. For example, Pensylvania is a state of the United States, even though it's official designation is the "Commonwealth of Pensylvania". -- Jeff3000 20:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There you go with that "they happen" thing again, as if it's little more than an accident that the Canadians have chosen the British monarch as their titular head of state. Let me ask you a question: what nationality is the queen? As for Pennsylvania not being called a state - you're wrong. It's called a state by the U.S. government, which is the sovereign entity in this particular case. Canada is a sovereign entity, and does not call itself a kingdom. For Wikipedia to describe it thus is therefore incorrect. TharkunColl 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What difference does Canada's choice to engage in a personal union with Britain have to do with anything? The two countries are independent, sovereign, separated, self-governing, no one has any legal jurisdiction over the other - that means Canadians have a Canadian monarch; the British monarch has no influence outside the UK. Britain could become a republic tomorrow and Canada would continue on as a kingdom in its own right because no laws in the UK have effect in Canada.

And you've been told, correctly, about thirty-six times now that because a country isn't officially called a kingdom doesn't mean it's not! Otherwise is Oman not a kingdom because it's called the Suntinate of Oman? Is Japan not a kingdom because it's simply called Japan? How about Kuwait? And otherwise you'd actually be able to counter the point that a kingdom is "a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen," and Canada fits that definition in every way. --gbambino 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about "thereby making it a sovereign kingdom..."? This is plainly just misleading - as though it MADE it into a kingdom. Using the term here, even if it were technically correct, serves no good purpose for readers & is just confusing --JimWae 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hah - well, that's something completely different. Stating it made canada a sovereign nation, or dominion, or any such thing would be equally misleading. So, the sentence needs to be reworded. --gbambino 21:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While I have to admit that I don't immediately grasp many of the arguments that User:TharkunColl is making above, I nevertheless suggest that we may be giving a kind of "undue emphasis" when we use the word "kingdom" in the article. I'm not really interested in researching the "truth of the matter"; it is just that the word is used relatively infrequently in summaries of Canada that it can read as if we're making some sort of point by including it. Jkelly 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's used once in the entire article, I think, and with very little emphasis. So it seems to me that the great effort some are investing to dance around provided evidence and sound logic hints that they're trying to make a point by having it removed.

If its an accurate insertion, then there's no reason for it to go. So far, nobody's been able to prove it's wrong. --gbambino 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oman, Japan, and Kuwait have monarchs that are called sultans, emperors (at least in English), and emirs respectively. I'm not sure of your point here - are you trying to suggest that all these titles from non-Western cultures should actually be translated as "king"? Not all monarches are kings, even in Europe. Monaco has princes, and Lichtenstein has grand dukes. In the past there have also been emperors. But your assertions about the monarchy are just wrong, anyway. Does the British monarch have no influence outside the UK? You are constantly reminding us that she also has a constitutional role in Canada. You appear to be treating her as if she were two different people, whereas in fact she is one person with many different titles. I hesitate to even call them jobs, because she only has one full time job - being quuen of the UK. You have asserted that I have not proved my case, but the fact is that I have. It is you who haven't, and the burden of proof must be on you who wants to include such a contentious word. Please provide an official government source that describes Canada as a kingdom. That is all we need to keep the word in. TharkunColl 22:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Queen of Canada is a completely seperate position than the Queen of the United Kingdom. Regardless, based on the definition of kingdom, it is clear that Canada is a kingdom because it has a monarchical form of government. That should be proof enough. But here is a document on a official government website (gc.ca) that calls Canada the "Kingdom of Canada" [11]. Also back to the Pennsylvania example. Pennsylvania officially calls itself a Commonwealth (see Commonwealth (United States)) (analagous to Canada being a dominion in our example), but it is still a state (non-proper noun). The US does not officially call any state anything, other than a state (again a non-proper noun). In the same way while Canada is not the Kingdom of Canada (proper noun) it still is a kingdom based on the definition of kingdom (non-proper noun). -- Jeff3000 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just a quotation from somebody's book. I have no issues with anyone calling Canada, or indeed anywhere else, a kingdom metaphorically. What I'm objecting to is the use of the word in what is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia. And, if the "Queen of Canada" is a completely separate position from that of the Queen of the UK, then why do they always have to be the same person? If you think that two positions that must always be held by the same individual are "completely separate", then you have a pretty weird definition of the word "separate". As I have pointed out already, for all practical purposes Canada does not have a monarchical form of government, because it does not have its own resident monarch. TharkunColl 22:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Monaco is a principality. Oman, Japan, and Kuwait are constitutional monarchies, the same as Canada. I use them as examples to show that a country isn't necessarily defined by what is or is not in its name; ie. Kuwait is the "State of Kuwait", not the "Emirate of Kuwait"; Japan is simply "Japan", not the "Empire of Japan" (perhaps Oman isn't the best example as it is the "Sultinate of Oman").

Beyond that, your main problem has been, and seems still to be, your serious misunderstanding of the relationship between Canada and the UK. You've been provided with sufficient explanation here (more than enough, really), and there's plenty of more available both on Wikipedia and from other sources which should help you understand better. If you refuse to accept pointed facts (maintain your "legal fictions" argument, if you will), then that is nobody's problem but your own.

No government source is needed to explain that Canada is a kingdom, otherwise we'd have to remove the point that Canada is a Commonwealth Realm (and a good load of other information). The examples from history, and from books and essays by historians and constitutional scholars will suffice, and, on top of that, all we need do is follow the simple logic that a country with a monarchical form of government, headed by a king or queen (which Canada is - separately from the UK), is a kingdom. Easy peasy. --gbambino 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Resolve issue on Talk first

I'm going to don the administrator hat here for a second. Is there a specific reason why the paragraph under debate has to say "the Canadian kingdom"? It may be correct, but that's clearly under dispute; meanwhile, it is in no way incorrect for the sentence to simply say "Canada" without reference to the disputed term "kingdom". Again, speaking as an administrator: I am reverting the disputed text back to just "Canada", and it is going to stay that way until the matter is resolved on this talk page. I have no personal opinion or bias in the matter, except that as an administrator I am mandating that the reversion war is to stop now. Bearcat 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It never said Canada - the paragraph was originally written using the word "kingdom", it stayed that way for weeks, there was no revert war, and yet suddenly it has to be changed because one person with a skewed perception of reality says it isn't appropriate? TharkunColl is the only one really contesting the use of the word, Jeff3000 (who's done extensive, excellent work on this article - getting it to featured article status even with the word kingdom in there), FDR, and myself have no issue with it. So, your coming in here and deeming one correct and the others not is called taking sides, and is wholly inappropriate. --gbambino 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "deeming anybody correct" or "taking sides", and I genuinely don't care which way this resolves; I'm merely stating (quite correctly per WP policy) that as long as the matter is under dispute, the section in question must be worded in as neutral and uncontroversial a phrasing as possible until a resolution is attained. Bearcat 22:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but let's keep it clear that Canada was not originally in the text, and myself, and others, were not surreptitiously trying to insert the word kingdom instead. It's actually quite the opposite. --gbambino 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but frankly it really doesn't matter what the original text was if the original text is the source of the dispute; what matters is that a dispute was raised, and that the dispute led to the beginnings of a revert war. So as a matter of Wikipedia process, I chose the least controversial wording of the disputed sentence and called a time-out to discuss the matter here, because it really is better that way than if I have to start blocking people's edit privileges for breaking the 3RR rule. Bearcat 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --gbambino 23:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bearcat has my full support in this. Jkelly 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

when leading scholars call it a kingdom the opposing view better have some sources: but what sources are they using??? see: William Kilbourn, Editor Canada A Guide to the Peaceable Kingdom (1970); W L Morton The Kingdom of Canada: A General History (1963) by a leading scholar; and Turmoil in the Peacable Kingdom: The Quebec Sovereignty Movement & Its Implications for Canada & the U. S. by Lemco, Jonathan (1994) Rjensen 22:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget John Farthing's Freedom Wears a Crown (Toronto, 1957), in which the first chapter is entitled "Kingdom of Canada".--gbambino 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bearcat also has my full support on this. The wording should remain as neutral as possible until the issue is sorted out on the talk page. the fact that the wording was one way or another for any period of time is irrelevant in determining what the wording should be. Any long-time has seen examples of patent nonsense that has appeared in an article for months before it has been noticed and removed. (I want to emphasize that I am not in any way suggesting that gbambino's position here is patent nonsense.) Ground Zero | t 23:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

dispute is over. some people said they had never heard that Canada was a kingdon--and wanted some evidence; others provided the scholarly evidence. end of dispute. Rjensen 23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There were still reversions taking place today, so clearly it's not over. For what it's worth, I don't really find TharkunColl's objection either very clear or very convincing, but as I've said this isn't about taking sides; it's about making sure this doesn't turn into a revert war with people being blocked. Bearcat 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• An encyclopedia is not just about being technically correct, but also about being informative and clear. The present edit in the government section in which the very first statement is that Canada is a kingdom,...

  Canada is a kingdom (a term seldom used), or a constitutional monarchy, that recognizes Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada (since February 6, 1952), and a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government, and strong democratic traditions.

• ...while it may be technically correct, seems more interested in making a point than in informing the reader (especially given the context and comments when inserted). If a term is seldom used (in this case because the monarch is female, AND because of the dominions ONLY the UK refers to itself as a kingdom with any regularity, AND because many Canadians are at least "uncomfortable" with the term), one has to question whether it merits first mention. The same parenthetical point can be made in a more balanced way by something like

  Canada is a constitutional monarchy, that recognizes Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada (since February 6, 1952), and a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government, and strong democratic traditions. As a monarchy, it is also correct to say that Canada is a kingdom, though that term is often misunderstood and seldom used.

• --JimWae 00:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

seems more interested in making a point than in informing the reader It's certainly informing the reader of something, namely that Canada is a kingdom. It's a simple enough point, and one I'm not sure why must be supressed, as though it's embarassing, or contradicts the POV of some select people, which leads to the next point:

many Canadians are at least "uncomfortable" with the term Where is the evidence for this assertion? How many Canadians find it uncomfortable? And if they, in particular, do, how should the personal feelings of some affect the communication of accuracy and truth in an encyclopaedia?

The country can be described in numerous ways: Parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, Commonwealth Realm, dominion, federal system, and kingdom. All of those have been acceptable to use in this article, except, strangely, and recently, the last. If it is indeed correct, informative and clear (and the evidence provided says that it is), then one can only be led to believe that removing it is an act done to make a point. Otherwise, it simply has to be asked: why is one relevant and valid word not allowed to be used anywhere in the article? Isn't that simply censorship? --gbambino 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please reread what I wrote --JimWae 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I read it, closely. Please address what I wrote.

In the meantime, I've removed the reference to kingdom from the beginning of the Government section as it was redundant to say kingdom and constitutional monarchy. I've instead made clear in the History section that upon Confederation Canada was considered a kingdom, but took the name Dominion of Canada instead - for which there are citeable references. --gbambino 02:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• What you wrote did not address what I wrote - I was not advocating removing the term. Btw, I have asked 3 native Canadians if they thought Canada was a kingdom - they all looked at me like it was a strange thing to ask, then said either "no" or said "well, it's a monarchy" --JimWae 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The actual distinction between a "monarchy" and a "kingdom" being...what, precisely? Bearcat 04:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Optics", mostly. The monarch is female, few Canadians would ever use the term kingdom for Canada, and it is likely that the term was NEVER applied to Canada in government documents. Even "monarchy" is rarely used without the qualification of "constitutional". As I said, calling it a kingdom, even if technically accurate, is mostly just confusing - even to Canadians. Using it to descibe Canada would require explanation even to Canadians & the purpose of introducing it into the article would be seen by most readers as "making a point". If the point is "allowed in", it should not be predominant & it would need to be explained (as I proposed above) - even to Canadians --JimWae 04:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, even though it apparently supports my case, the issue of whether the monarch is female is a red herring. There is no such word as "queendom" in English and - sexist though it undoubtedly is - the word kingdom is always used instead.

Canada is undoubtedly a constitutional monarchy - its constitution specifies that its head of state is a monarch. It is also a dominion, because that was the term chosen in the 1860s to describe it when it became an independent state. Yes, there was a proposal to call it a kingdom, and this proposal was made in good faith by serious politicians and constitutional thinkers. For whatever reason (and the reason doesn't matter), this proposal was rejected. The terms "dominion" and "kingdom" are not synonymous in English, because even a moment's thought will show that "dominion" has a far wider and consequently less specific application than "kingdom". One could say "Victoria's kingdom included Great Britain and Ireland" or "Victoria's dominion included a quarter of the world". Or, in a slightly different way, "Henry VIII's kingdom was called England" or "Hitler's dominion was called the Third Reich". In both of these double examples, one could substitute dominion for kingdom and still retain accuracy, but not the other way round.

The people who organised the constitutional arrangements for Canada in the 1860s were legislative pioneers. Never before had a British colony, or in this case a federation of a group of British colonies, been granted such a measure of self rule as to constitute effective independence (the case of the USA obviously doesn't count because that was contested). They could, very easily, have gone down the route of calling Canada a kingdom, in which case we wouldn't be having this debate. But they didn't. They chose instead to use a far less specific word, namely, dominion. This was the first time that the term "dominion" had ever been used as part of the name of a country, but it set a precedent. No former British colony, or federation of former British colonies, has ever been called a kingdom - those that retain the king/queen as head of state have always, instead, been called dominions. (NB - I am, of course, aware that a few former British colonies, such as Tahiti, are indeed called kingdoms. But these are the ones with their own native monarchs. These exceptions prove the rule.)

I am also fully aware that under law, the Crown of Canada is separate from the Crown of the UK, etc. But despite this legal separation, the fact remains that the Canadians have chosen the same person as the British monarch to be their own monarch. Notice that the previous sentence was rather convoluted, and it would have been far better English to simply say "the Canadians have chosen the British monarch to be their own monarch" - were it not for the fact that certain pedants might point out that the this was somehow wrong. What such pedants seem to be overlooking, is that whereas the crowns and offices might indeed be legally separate, the person isn't. There are not two (or more) different queens, but one single person who holds a number of different titles and offices. And furthermore, the only office that she actually exercises in her own person is that of Queen of the UK, where she lives and where she receives her income from. Her legal functions in Canada are exercised by somebody else, who is chosen by the Canadians themselves. And furthermore, at no time could the queen ever take these powers back and exercise them herself - the Canadian constitution would simply not allow it.

In short, to some up:

• The powers-that-be chose to call Canada a dominion, not a kingdom, and at no time has it ever called itself a kingdom (those book titles and other quotes are not legal documents and are obviuosly using the phrase figuratively or metaphorically).
• In calling itself a dominion rather than a kingdom, Canada set a precedent that was followed by all other British colonies that retained the British monarch as their own.
• A dominion differs from the UK in a number of fundamental ways. It has a governor general who exercises the powers of the monarch, and this role is entrenched in the constitution. The monarch herself exercises no powers and connot even reclaim them. The monarch is absent and lives faraway in another country, and no money is provided for the monarch's daily upkeep. All dominions are former British colonies, organised and settled by the British, nurtured and looked after, until they were ready to stand on their own two feet (the UK is obviously not a former British colony).

Canada is not a kingdom. Kingdoms are something different. Canada has no need to follow medieval European naming conventions. It is new and unique. TharkunColl 09:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jumping back into the debate...

• I'm not sure I agree with TharkunColl about Canada being "something different" - I fully recognize that Canada mostly walks like a duck, and mostly quacks like a duck. However, some major differences.

Canada has a Governor-General, the UK does not. Thus, for example, Parliament's Throne Speech is never read by the Queen, only by the G-G. (certainly not the only example.) That's not really walking like a duck. Symmetry may be legal, but it's not the implemented reality.

Canadians don't call it a kingdom. They/we just don't commonly use that word. That's the point of my thought experiment (ask 10 people on the street...) above, and confirmed further by JimWae's "...and they all looked at me like it was a strange thing to ask" comment. I asked around last night and the best comment I received was "well, it might techncially be, I don't know, but I certainly would never call it that." That's not really quacking like a duck. That's why the gender of the monarch matters - since the term "kingdom" is so far out of common use to describe Canada, when a Canadian uses it, they hear the "king" bit, and it sounds odd. Of course there is no "queendom", but it doesn't matter, that's not what Canadians are hearing.

• There have been various claims from kingdom-yes proponents that this is only "two people who clearly don't understand the situation", or "one person with a skewed perception of reality", but it's clearly much more than that - on both sides. As a result, I would like to take the opportunity to divert the debate to "what is the best way to say this". I would suggest that the kingdom-yes proponents are primarily wanting to make sure that the article doesn't exclude the monarchical nature of the country's government or the close relationship with the monarch. I believe both of those concepts are unargued fact. Can we work them into the sentence without using the word "kingdom"? AshleyMorton 11:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "constitutional monarchy"? TharkunColl 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As the subject says, let's settle this on the talk page. Putting it back into the article when no consensus has emerged is probably against policy (I don't really know - I haven't been around Wikipedia this long), but I know for certain that it's not acting in good faith. Gbambino added it again, I have removed it again, and I have no interest in wasting time doing so again.AshleyMorton 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Canada did not receive the name "Kingdom of Canada" as was proposed - this fact is established and accepted. However, the Fathers of Confederation saw that the country was a kingdom, and thus requested the name. They would not ask for it to be called "Kingdom of Canada" if it was not itself a kingdom! The proposed drafts for the BNA Act, as well as Macdonald's letters of the time explain this.
• Despite a Governor General being present to exercise the Queen's prerogative, all executive authority belongs still to the Queen - not to the GG, to whom power is only lent through the 1947 Letters Patent (see above for excerpted text from the Constitution Act 1867, and Letters Patent 1947 clarifying this). This is why the Queen has opened parliament on two occasions, signed her own name to Canadian proclamations, and represented Canada abroad numerous times. The GG has not somehow stripped her of her position and powers - in fact, the GG wouldn't exist without the Monarch.
• What most Canadians think doesn't matter at all in this discussion. If it did we'd have to delete the entire Monarchy in Canada article because most Canadians don't believe Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Ask your friends who the head of state is and wait for a blank stare. Would that really be justification for the shaping of articles on Wikipedia?
• Constitutional monarchy is fine, so is parliamentary democracy, federal state, etc., etc. What needs to be answered it what is wrong with kingdom? No argument so far puts forward a valid reason for the banishment of the word, especially when those who created the country themselves deemed it a kingdom! If a country headed by a monarch is a kingdom then it's a done deal. The acrobatics to get around this logic just to exclude one word to use to describe Canada is almost laughable.
• As for inserting the word where I did - the cited bloody reference is right there. How can anyone justify removing cited material? --gbambino 16:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada has never had its own monarchy, it never was a kingdom. It's head of state is that of the United Kingdom. BlueKangaroo 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC).

Canada has (is) its own monarchy but shares the monarch, so the same person is separately head of two different states. But we've already established that. Thanks anyway. --gbambino 20:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Canada was created in 1867 as a Dominion. Dominion in 1867 meant something different than it does today. In 1867 a Dominion was not the equal of a kingdom such as the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Then in 1931 the Dominions became sovereign states and were the equal of Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thus, as equals, there was no need to change the name, and tradition has been to continue using the word Dominion. Peter Grey 22:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Motivations and edit-warring

gbambino seems intent on a revert war to refer to Canada as a kingdom - that was never the official title of Canada, was actually rejected by the crown, has never been used by the gov't, and sounds strange to the vast majority of Canadians. He keeps inserting the term as flat-out description of Canada. Even were the titles synonymous, that is NOT the title of Canada. The correct title is dominion. This seems to be approaching WP:Point --JimWae 16:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT is about things one doesn't want to see happen, but does them to demonstrate by example. This is a plain-old edit war. Jkelly 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't throw revert war accusations around so freely. Just understand that it's more than a little incomprehensible that cited material would be removed. No matter what you assert, Macdonald et. all saw the country as a kingdom. So, I'm waiting for a) a reason why that point should not be included, and b) a reason why kingdom is such an inaccurate word to use, especially in that specific context of confederation. --gbambino 16:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Having a source is essential, but sources can be found for nearly anything. It is still a POV and cannot be presented as fact. There are significant differences between the monarchy's relationship with the country that does call itself a kingdom (UK) and the one she has with any of the dominions. Calling it a kingdom is an attempt to make a polemic point, not part of what belongs in an encyclopedia - except perhaps as a separate article outlining the arguments on both sides. --JimWae 16:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gbambino, I cannot emphasize enough that it is vastly more important to work collaboratively with other editors towards consensus than it is to get the article to represent the "truth" right this minute. I cannot imagine how one would define "revert war" and not include the last 24 hours of this article. Jkelly 16:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't yet done a minute study of the history of the article over the last 24 hrs., but my memory tells me that the edits were attempts to insert the word in a proper context (and they weren't all me either).

I've been through similar situations to this where I was (with others) on the other side of the debate, and though I didn't necessarily agree with the reasoning, since the "opponent" (for lack of a better word) provided sourced material, there really was no reason not to include it in the article.

I've asked two sound questions, and continue to wait for an answer. Assuming that I am trying to make a polemic point is not acceptable, unless JimWae is accusing the first Prime Minister of Canada of doing the same thing.

Though I'm still intrigued to hear answers to my questions, I'm wondering now if simply saying "The British North America Act created what Macdonald considered a kingdom, but which was called "one dominion under the name of Canada", with four provinces..." The reference for this would be as exists on the page now, it isn't POV, and the existing Wikilink to Canada's name#Adoption of Dominion works perfectly for further explanation.--gbambino 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would consider that a completely valid formulation, that I would support. It gives a respectful nod of the hat to the concept of kingdom, without approaching the contentious issue of Canada currently being a kingdom. I would support that - and thanks for suggesting it.AshleyMorton 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"I would consider that a completely valid formulation" - *sigh*, 'I agree' would have done. BlueKangaroo 20:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC).

Did Macdonald call it a kingdom after the BNA Act, or before, or both? Another formulation would be something like "Macdonald and other Canadians requested the new act refer to Canada as a kingdom, but this was rejected by the crown and instead the term dominion was used." --JimWae 17:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This will be my last post on the topic, since I really don't care about if kingdom is in the article or not, but I just want to make a couple things clear that I think have been lost in the discussion regarding the motiviation, etc, etc.

• The word kingdom was used in the non-proper noun sense in the article for many many months
• It was not gbambino who started the edit war trying to push his POV, in fact it was TharkunColl who kept on removing the statement even when all his requests for information were met including:

1. Why it was a kingdom? Provided a definition in the non-proper noun sense.
2. Sources of Canada being called a kingdom. Provided many titles of books.
3. Sources used in books. Excerts of books provided

-- Jeff3000 17:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Move discussion?

It seems really silly to have this argument here. Unless I've missed something, the whole basis of the argument is that any country with the Queen of England as the head of state is a Kingdom. If that's the argument, this discussion belongs at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, not here. If Canada is a kingdom, so are the other 15 countries in the commonwealth. In the mean time, the article already lists the country as a constitutional monarchy. If you accept that that's essentially a synonym for kingdom, any insistence at using the really abnomal term "kingdom" is just trying to prove a point, rather than contributing anything of value. Any the point would be better proved at Talk:Commonwealth Realm than here. TheMightyQuill 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion is relevant here as well, because Canada was the very first "commonwealth realm" to gain independence from the UK, and its constitutional arrangements set a precedent for all the others. Sir John Macdonald may well have wanted Canada to be a kingdom, but after his proposal was rejected such a term became unthinkable for his later counterparts in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, etc. TharkunColl 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The only point still waiting to be made is what exactly is "abnormal" about the term kingdom, specifically in reference to Canada. As Jeff3000 outlined above, enough logic and external sources have been provided to explain sufficiently that Canada is a kingdom, and why. Does this apply to other Commonwealth Realms (who each have their own monarch embodied in one person, who certainly is not the "Queen of England" as such a person hasn't existed for well over 300 years)? I would say yes, but it's a whole other debate. Right now we're specifically dealing with Canada, and the examples provided deal with Canada only.

Anyway, it now seems that it's coming down to how to word the point that the Fathers of Confederation saw the country as a kingdom. It's wishy-washy (as though they thought it was then, but it isn't now), but it's compromise of sorts, I guess. --gbambino 18:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The term is "abnormal" because (almost?) no one uses it today to describe Canada, whether inside or outside the country. Even Dominion is more commonly known. I'm willing to admit Canada is technically a kindom, but I don't see why it's relevant to this page. What MacDonald considered may be applicable to History of Canada and Monarchy in Canada but it's really beside the point when looking at modern Canada. No one uses that term (even if it's correct) they use Constitutional Monarchy. You haven't given any reason why term (which already appears on the page, uncontested) isn't good enough.

Just out of curiousity, has any monarch ever referred to it as a his or her Kingdom? I think that would be more important than Macdonald's ideas. -- TheMightyQuill 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No-one, on the street, that is, calls it a constitutional monarchy either. In fact, most don't even know it is. But that doesn't make the term incorrect or abnormal. Scholars call it a constitutional monarchy, and they call it a kingdom - that's what matters.

All this comes down to is that the term "kingdom" was on here for a long time, read (presumably) by many people, and only one has recently objected to it. Now, TharkunColl is, of course, entitled to his objections, but to continue them in the face of evidence provided is pedantic and aggravating. I don't see why we should alter what was long-standing and practice censorship just to satisfy the sensitivities of one person who refuses to accept facts.

Kingdom always was in the History section, and I moved it so that it pertained more to Confederation, trying to appease those who mistakenly believe that the country today is something lost between a kingdom and a republic. I proposed that it be further watered down to the point where it appears as if Canada being a kingdom was merely an idea of J.A. Macdonald, but somehow the accepted name made him wrong. Again, I'll concede to this, but I'm willing to capitulate no further than that. I can't believe TharkunColl's objections have taken this so far already.

As to whether any monarch has called Canada their kingdom, I personally don't know. But it's an interesting question, and I can certainly try to look into it. --gbambino 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This country is a Kingdom as by definition. Dominion is used in name and is what Canada is and a Dominion is just another word for Kingdom. I have always called this country a Dominion maybe because I'm older and was a common thing to call our country and also it is the official name the Dominion of Canada. Whether people believe it is or not I think people just don't want it to be. You can cite up as many documents and books as you want or the constitutional act of 1982. It does not state we are a dominion or kingdom therefore we are some how not. These are all tricks by the liberals to try and take away one more element of Canada's past. I know Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased but it has to be you either support our Queen and our ties with the United Kingdom and its people or you wish to become completely separate and forget about our Queen and our motherland. The United Kingdom is Canada and Canada is the United Kingdom we are one in the same maybe one day some of you will realise this and can be proud again of our British ties.

It is quite clear our forefathers wished us to be loyal British subjects unless you are stupid and blind you may not understand this. I don't think it was anyone's intention to cut off our ties to the land which they came from or the land their parents came from and the people which built the new land they were in. There are two ways to look at this country either its history began in 1867 or it has continued from a few thousand years ago in Britannia, the choice is yours. Also Yes the monarch has referred to its kingdom. King George VI even called Canada his kingdom and that he was the King of Canada that is where we got the Queen of Canada title from. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 26 May 2006 11:51 {UTC}

I can appreciate some of your comments, but this really isn't about asserting any "Britishness" or sentimental historicism. It's really just about purveying facts, and the fact is, Canada is a kingdom. If it is, then there's no reason why the word has to be removed, in any discussion of the country today, but especially in conjunction with Confederation when they clearly thought it was.

It's interesting that George VI called Canada his kingdom - when TheMightyQuill rasied the question, it was George VI that immediately popped into my mind. Do you have a source where the King can be quoted as calling Canada his kingdom? --gbambino 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm perfectly willing to accept that Canada is a kingdom, and it's indisputable that MacDonald wanted it to be called a Kindom, but I'm not sure that's so important to go on the main page. It's already there under Canada's name. Why does it matter what MacDonald wanted but didn't get? It's interesting trivia, but not really important.

People on the street might not regularly refer to canada as a constitutional monarchy, but if you have them a choice between, kingdom and constitutional monarchy, they would undoubtedly choose the latter.

• Google hits for Kingdom of Canada: 474 (mostly referring to Macdonald's wish.)
• for "canada is a kingdom": 22
• for "canada is a constitutional monarchy":10,400

Were not talking about a close race here. -- TheMightyQuill 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then (barring the point that the country is called a kingdom in numerous books which aren't available in full print on the internet) referring to Canada as a kingdom one time, in relation to the point in history when Macdonald was overseeing Confederation, won't be out of place or disproportionate. --gbambino 19:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling Canada a kingdom is contested - with some support. It has not been established as "a fact", which in this case would require agreement by scholars with hardly any exception. It is also much more "abnormal" than calling it a constitutional monarchy - which most Canadians would at least recognize as correct. It is of little relevance what Macdonald wanted to call it, or even what a king or two might have said in passing - official documents do NOT call Canada a kingdom. Calling Canada a kingdom (even if technically correct, which has not been agreed upon), would require explanation & support within the article - in which case both sides would need to be represented. It is sufficient to describe Canada to call it a constitutional monarchy, & to point out the title "dominion" applies. Dealing with "kingdom" is really more appropriate material for the several subarticles that deal with the monarchy in Canada & Canada's name --JimWae 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC) It could be relevant to state that Macdonald wanted it to be called a kingdom, but then it would be relevant to point out that the term was rejected --JimWae 19:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Official documents do NOT call Canada a constitutional monarchy either.

Calling Canada a kingdom does not require explanation, as calling it a constitutional monarchy does not, apparently, require explanation.

Scholars call Canada both a constitutional monarchy and a kingdom - there is no contesting of either because each is the same thing.

If one description is acceptable then there is no reason why the other is not - assumptions about what "most Canadians" would say, the point that Canada was officially called a Dominion, strange arguments centring around the presence of a Governor General, etc., simply don't cut it.

Thus, there remains no reason to remove the simple word kingdom, especially from the last proposed location in the last proposed format, to which there seemed to be an approaching consensus. This said Macdonald considered the country a kingdom, but the name Dominion was adopted instead; very similar to what you've just suggested. --gbambino 19:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that this discussion should be moved to the talk page on the Commonwealth Realms article Talk:Commonwealth Realm. Because this argument applies not only to Canada but to all of the Commonwealth realms. Since if Canada is a kingdom, so are all the other realms, but if it is not a kingdom, then they are not either. My view is that Canada is a kingdom. FDR 15:45, May 26, 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe we are having this argument again. It is perfectly correct to say "Canada is a constitutional monarchy" and "Canada is a kingdom" (though the letter reads a bit strange when it has a queen, and is less accurate than the former). But "Kingdom of Canada" is not the official title of the country; nor is "Dominion of Canada". DJ Clayworth 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I do not think that this is the correct place to have this discussion. Because this issue applies to all of the Commonwealth Realms, not just Canada, and the users on this page are getting arguments about things that have nothing to do with Canada. We should come to a mutual agreement to delete this segment of this talk page and then repost it on the Commonwealth Realms article's talk page. FDR FDR:MyTalk 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• how about placing a link there to this discussion, rather than beginning all over again, and continuing the discussion there? --JimWae 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine, to. But I think that we need in the future to discuss this issue on that talk page, rather than this one. FDR MyTalk 16:05 May 26 2006

This is a very stupid discussion to be having. Canada is a sovereign state with a queen. Any nation like that is by definition a kingdom. That official Canadian documents do not call it that does not matter. They do not call it a dominion, a term which has not been used in Canada for decades, or a constitutional monarchy either. That is really the end of the argument. And you cannot say that Canada is not its own kingdom because of it sharing the same monarch as the United Kingdom because even when Scotland and Ireland shared the same monarch as England they were still considered their own kingdoms. This discussion needs to end. The article needs to state that Canada is a kingdom. End of discussion. FDR | MyTalk 19:57 May 26, 2006 (UTC)

uh.. the official documents most certainly have called Canada a dominion --JimWae 01:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no source for King George VI remarks but I am certain he said it on his Royal tour here in 1939. It wasn't just a passing remark either I think he really meant it. That he just didn't want to be seen as some foreign power but a leader of Canada and all other subjects abroad. The "Kingdom of Canada" I don't think is our official name but saying Canada is a Kingdom is quite correct. That should be obvious look it up in a dictionary and that is what we are. A constitutional monarchy is still a Kingdom it just applies to the powers of the King itself but doesn't mean the Kingdom is gone. I still say Dominion of Canada is our name I'm not going to change it on here but I believe that is what the people wanted to call themselves and that was chosen. That is what I was taught anyway Canada was just a shortened version but we all knew we were the Dominion of Canada but I guess now people have forgot our title.

Yes this does have to do with "Britishness" if people were not so fussy about being British subjects why do we have these problems on here and in this country? Surely those who are loyalists don't mind being a Kingdom or using the word Dominion. Why did this country have to change its flag and anthem if people didn't mind being British subjects? I think that is what it comes down too because there is no evidence to say we are not a kingdom or that the Dominion of Canada is not our proper name. Does Canada just define itself now against what the United States is or our sense of nationalism is beer advertisements? How times have changed. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 26 May 2006 18:51 {UTC}

AshleyMorton, you said that Canada is not a kingdom and then cited the comparison of India when it was a British colony having Victoria as its Empress to prove your point. Earlier in this discussion I replied that since India was a mere colony whereas Canada is an independent country it was not a valid comparison. What is your response to my point? FDR | FDR:MyTalk 26 May 2006 15:48

Proposal

Okay, so I have a document produced by the government of Canada that states Canada became "a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward." [12] This confirms that not only was Canada a kingdom at Confederation, but the use of the word "onward" means that it continued to be a kingdom after Confederation. Can this therefore be introduced into the history section: "The British North America Act created Canada as "a kingdom in her own right," referred to as "one dominion under the name of Canada", with four provinces..."

I should have remembered this material; it was distributed to schools across the country for the Queen's 2002 Golden Jubilee visit, and I have printed versions of it (in French and English) at home. --gbambino 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The wording you have just proposed above makes it seem that the British North America Act actually called Canada "a kingdom in her own right" - whereas in reality it was a bunch of leaflets produced for a royal visit in 2002. And that begs the question - why would Canadians need to be told this? Are they really so ignorant? No one in the UK would need to be told that it's a kingdom, the bloody royals are on TV almost every single day making fools of themselves in one way or another. If Canada really is a kingdom, then it has been remarkably reticent about saying so. If it's a kingdom, it's a kingdom without a royal family. Yes, it may legally have a queen, but the royal family is not just the queen, it's all her offspring and their spouses, etc. You don't have Prince Charles sticking his nose into government policy by writing to all the ministers every day demanding to be kept informed of what's going on, or trying to overturn a decision of the National Health Service to stop funding alternative medicine. You don't get Prince Harry dressing up in Nazi uniform and getting drunk at parties. You don't get Princess Anne up in court on speeding charges and getting off scot free. You don't get revelations that Princess Michael of Kent's father was an SS guard during the war. And you don't get Elton John recycling a second rate pop song for a stuck-up, spoilt brat and making it the best selling single in the history of the world. This is what you get in a real kingdom. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then perhaps, after all, it's really a goose... TharkunColl 07:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

Once again, I can totally accept that Canada is a kingdom. What I don't accept is that the term needs to be used here.
My reasons:
1. It is confusing. The very fact that this discussion continues is evidence enough of that. Usage of the term does need explanation (moreso than constitutional monarchy, which is a much more widespread term).
2. No one has yet stated any reason why the more abnormal term needs to be used here.
Proposed Solutions:
1. The term should definitely be used (and explained) on History of Canada and on Monarchy in Canada but on this page it is confusing and unecessary.
3. Discussion over whether or not Canada is currently a kingdom (Personally, I think gbambino's evidence is pretty indisputable here) should be moved to Talk:Monarchy in Canada. If anyone denies that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, we have a real problem.
-- TheMightyQuill 10:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And I can't accept why the term shouldn't be used, especially in conjunction with Confederation. There are now three clear sources (Macdonald's letters, the drafts of the BNA Act, and Canadian Heritage information) that point indisputably to the fact that Canada was considered a kingdom at Confederation. Why the suppression of this simple point? It's not wrong, it's not unfounded, and for God's sake, it's not "abnormal" nor confusing. How can the truth be cofusing or abnormal? It's right there in black and white in numerous places! And isn't the purpose of this encyclopaeda to educate people about the facts?

Yes, History of Canada can go into more detail, perhaps even Monarchy in Canada, but I still cannot fathom what's so objectionable to stating here that in 1867, at Confederation, Canada became "a kingdom in her own right." That's using the language of the Fathers of Confederation, and Canadian Heritage information about Confederation.

TharkunColl, despite his anti-monarchy rant which may expose the true nature behind his objections, is right that the wording of my proposed sentence isn't clear enough. So, I propose this: "Canada became "a kingdom in her own right" 1 with the passing of the British North America Act, in which the country was called "one dominion under the name of Canada",2 with four provinces..."

I think this sheds light on something important, and reading it in the History synopsis may entice readers to look further into it on Canada's name and History of Canada.

Would you regard "British North America" as an acceptable alternative name for Canada? Or what about Macdonald's proposal for a "British monarchy"? TharkunColl 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What? Why should we avoid stating something that is true because some people don't get it? The purpose of an encycopedia is to explain confusing things, not to avoid talking about them. Myself I don't see what is so confusing. Canada has a Queen, and (in the absence of the word queendom) is therefore a kingdom. Now is has to be said that constitutional monarchy is a much better term, since it distinguishes Canada from absolute monarchies. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Along those lines - nowhere in the article is Canada called a monarchy either - without being qualified as a constitutional one. Descriptions of the status of Canada should be based primarily on the legal documents - or be so clear that they require no source and no explanation at all. There is no shortage of documents calling Canada a dominion. Neither Australia nor New Zealand are presently called kingdoms in their articles, and there too every reference to monarchy is qualified. The proposed insertion ignores the fact that the term kingdom was specifically rejected at that time, while making it seem that it still had some official status as such. I am not saying leave kingdom out of the article, just that most locations would require some explanation. Perhaps...

  While there were requests that the new federation be called the "Kingdom of Canada", the British North America Act created "One Dominion under the Name of Canada". --JimWae 21:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Nowhere in the United Kingdom article is the UK ever described as a "kingdom" - and it is never called a "monarchy" even - without the "constitutional" qualifier. --JimWae 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There's enough trouble getting people to decide whether the UK is a state or a country to completely distract them from arguments over whether it is a kingdom or a monarchy, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should we avoid stating something that is true because some people don't get it? I'm not suggesting leaving it out of the encyclopedia. If someone is really interested if Canada can be considered a kingdom or not, whether MacDonald intended it to be called a kingdom, and many other related questions, they are quite able to look up Canadian Confederation, History of Canada, Monarchy in Canada and many other things. My point is that it isn't necessary to use the word kingdom on the main Canada page. Yes it's confusing, yes it should be explained (that's what encyclopedias are for) but I don't see why it needs to be explained here, and if a full explanation doesn't belong on this page, why mention it at all? The fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and was officially called a Dominion is important for this page. Whether "kingdom" is a suitable synonym for "constitutional monarchy" and whether MacDonald prefered the term "kingdom" (even though both, imho, are true) is not important for this page. -- TheMightyQuill 10:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be moving towards a consensus, that constitutional monarchy is a better description than kingdom, and we should prefer to use it, but that we can use kingdom if there is a reason. DJ Clayworth 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I like constitutional monarchy. It clarifies exactly what kind of kingdom Canada is. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for further explanation in other articles, but the reasoning behind this point still eludes me: Yes it's confusing, yes it should be explained... What, exactly, is confusing about the word "kingdom"? What, exactly, is confusing about the point that Canada became a kingdom in its own right after the passing of the BNA act? If its understandable enough to be used in a government-produced education pamphlet sent to school kids, why is it suddenly akin to quantum physics here? --gbambino 19:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is even some disagreement about the date. Did Canada become a kingdom in 1867, or 1931? A very good question - prior to 1931 Canada simply recognised the monarch of the UK as its head. It still does of course, for all practical purposes. I understand the arguments here, they are very simple (perhaps even simplistic). A country with a king or queen is a kingdom, end of story. But things in the real world are never really that simple. TharkunColl 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have two primary sources - 1) John A. Macdonald considered the country to be a kingdom in 1867, 2) the Department of Canadian Heritage saw fit to tell school children that Canada became a kingdom in its own right in 1867. I can understand some people's points about the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, or the Constitution Act in 1986 (this same debate parallels that of when Canada actually became independent), but the two sources outlined above say Canada was, in nature, itself a kingdom after 1867.

This is opinion on my part, but if India was a dominion of the British Crown yet still called an Empire, then it would seem clear to me that Canada could be a kingdom even though one subordinate to the UK. --gbambino 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to the colonies that became provinces. Though not independent, can they not also be called kingdoms? Is Canada really a federation of kingdoms? They are, after all, far older entities than the federal government. TharkunColl 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you had a reliable source that said so, I'd most likely believe it. I'd even say that you'd have a stronger argument for the Australian states being considered kingdoms in their own right, as there the State Governors are direct representatives of the Queen, not of the Governor General, as is the case in Canada (though even that isn't so crystal clear anymore). But, is that really the debate right now? --gbambino 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Gbambino, how can you suggest it's not confusing? There are a number of users on this page that know a fair amount about Canada who are confused by the term, whereas everyone here would be happy with "constitutional monarchy." Don't you think that indicates some element of confusion? The term is not regularly used to describe Canada. I don't care if you can cite 10 or 20 examples of it being used it books, that doesn't change the fact that it's not commonly used to describe Canada' even though it could be legitimately. So give it a rest okay? You still haven't given any reason why it's important to use the term kingdom. -- TheMightyQuill 07:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to preview the next 4-6 posts, hopefully to save time, because this series has happened at least three times before:

• Gbambino believes that the issue is not why it *should* be used, rather why it should *not* be used, and that until it is proven incorrect , it should be in place. It was there at the time of FAC, and for a long time before - it is the change to remove it that must be justified.
• Opponents of "kingdom" believe that because it's not common usage, the onus actually lies on the other side - that kingdom-yes people must prove the usefulness (even though "kingdom" may be technically applicable - on which issue there is still some division, even among the kingdom-no people), because there needs to be some cause shown for Wikipedia to use an "abnormal" or "confusing" word.
• Gbambino believes that common usage is not relevant to the current discussion - if the "average person" is unaware of something, there's no benefit to Wikipedia perpetuating their ignorance.
• During the discussion, several sidelights will come up - people who haven't yet been part of the discussion will bring up Canada's name (which is not at issue.), someone will use the word "queendom", and someone will probably pine for a republic. We will go 'round in circles.

SO I would like to actually propose a Support/Oppose vote for "kingdom" - to be replaced with the words "constitutional monarchy" wherever it's reasonable, and some other construction as we supposedly-intelligent people can produce for anywhere that the language makes CM an awkward term. I would exempt from this exclusion direct quotations, such as the Sir John A one.

I'm not going to start the voting, because I don't know if there's a process that I should be following for this, or even if my proposal to have a vote is a good idea. What do you folks think? AshleyMorton 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My only comment is that the article, I believe, only mentioned "kingdom" once - in regards to the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Someone raised the issue that the wording was ambiguous, and the one use of kingdom was subsequently moved to refer more to the creation of Canada as a nation in 1867. So, really, all we'd be debating is: is it reasonable to use the word "kingdom" instead of "consititutional monarchy" when speaking of what Canada became at Confederation? --gbambino 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

kingdom vs. Kingdom

This strikes as phenominally silly. Canada is, of course, a kingdom, the same way that a monarchy with an emperor is an empire, a monarchy with a prince is a principality, etc. Canada has been a kingdom since 1931 (not 1867). It is not, however, commonly called the Kingdom of Canada either officially or traditionally. I hate to use a comparison with the US, but compare the sound of the United States of America is a federation versus Federation of the United States of America. Peter Grey 23:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Queen's role in the provinces

Is the queen head of state of each of the provinces as well, in a role unconnected with her role as queen of Canada? Surely this must be the case, as the provinces have a legal, sovereign existence in their own right, which cannot be altered by the federal government. In which case, if she can be rightly called Queen of Newfoundland (etc.), then why is not Newfoundland a kingdom? TharkunColl 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The case of Newfoundland is in some ways similar to the case of Scotland, I would think. Both were independent kingdoms before the merger with their neighbours at which point they each became part of a larger kingdom rather than kingdoms in their own right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of Canada's finest achievements in constitutional ambiguity. Provinces are not sovereign (they're sometimes called 'co-sovereign', which is a fancy way of people avoiding the question). Lieutenant-governors have this weird dual role where they represent the Queen but do so as subordinates of the Governor-General (employed and salaried by the Dominion government). Peter Grey 22:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A kingdom that dare not speak its name. A monarchy with an absentee monarch. A dominion that has eschewed even that old compromise. A country with an identity crisis... TharkunColl 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, to dream of a Canada only having only one identity crisis! Peter Grey 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

References to kingdom

Not that this is necessarily part of the discussion above, but I'd like to start a list of sources here which point to Canada being a kingdom. This information may prove useful here, or on other Canada related pages.

• Ewart, John S.; The Kingdom of Canada: imperial federation, the colonial conferences, the Alaska boundary and other essays; Morang; Toronto, 1908
  • Re Ewart: http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/encyclopedia/JohnS.Ewart-Wallace.htm - while he may have used the term, he was an advocate of republicanism & so his usage can be seen as polemic --JimWae 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Kilbourn, William; Canada A Guide to the Peaceable Kingdom; 1970
  • the phrase 'peaceable kingdom' was not invented by Northrop Frye or Joe Clark, but by an American, the Quaker minister and painter Edward Hicks. See [ http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=refresh&docId=23545025&type=book] wherein 'peacable kingdom' is described as a metaphor --JimWae 23:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Morton; W.L.; The Kingdom of Canada: A General History; 1963
• Lemco, Jonathan; Turmoil in the Peaceable Kingdom: The Quebec Sovereignty Movement & Its Implications for Canada & the U. S.; 1994
  • does he describe Canada as a kingdom outside the title?--JimWae 23:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Farthing, John; Freedom Wears a Crown; 1957: first chapter is titled "Kingdom of Canada"
• Department of Canadian Heritage educational literature: "...and as a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward."
• Canadian monarchists

Have I started something? If so excellent. DJ Clayworth 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ref for National Holidays

Hey guys - congrats on passing FAC! I have a question about one of the references that's listed, for "National Holidays." I see that the section on Holidays has been removed; does this reference still apply to anything, or can it be removed? Thanks! User: The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch :) I've removed the reference. -- Jeff3000 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

arrgh

Well, you got it through the FAC process, but the first sentence I looked at is:

"Non-official languages are important in Canada, with 5,202,245 people listing a non-official language as a first language. Among the most important non-official first language ..."

"Non-official" occurs three times; "language(s) occurs four times. Would someone like to make it "compelling, even brilliant"? Sorry to gripe, but I thought it had been thoroughly fixed up.

Tony 14:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest a better wording. heqs 17:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Military picture

heqs keeps putting up the military. There are far too many military pictures in this article (four of them), and too many images in the first place. I really don't think it needs to be there. If we are going to add extra pictures, they should be of something else that represents Canada since the military is already well represented. And unless someone else comments here in the next day or so, I will be removing the extra military picture once again. -- Jeff3000 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I agree. Apart from implying Canada is a more warfaring country than it is and historically has been, it also contributes to the over-abundance of pictures in general in this article. Removal of at least one of them gets my vote. Brianporter 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't count the picture of the peacekeeping monument as a fourth military picture in as much as it doesn't make Canada look like a "warfaring" nation. WWI and II were landmark events in Canadian history, but I would support another 20th century pic replace one of them - maybe we could find a pic that illustrates the patriation of the constitution or something. I certainly don't think there's an "over-abundance" of pictures at this time. heqs 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Peacekeeping missions are peformed by the military, and the peacekeeping picture is that of a soldier, and thus there are four military pictures. And for someone on a small resolution, the images detract from the text and so there is an overabundance of pictures. I will remove the new picture later on today, unless there is more discussion. -- Jeff3000 15:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: the only "peacekeeping picture" is that of a monument. The Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are not on a peacekeeping mission officially, maybe some people interpret it that way. heqs 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

When did Elizabeth II become Queen of Canada?

This is just a very minor point, and I'm not seriously advocating changing the date, but I couldn't help noticing that her accession as Queen of Canada is given as 6 Feb 1952. The exact time of death of George VI is unknown, as he died during the night, but it would almost certainly have been before 5 a.m., and probably quite a long time before. In other words, while it was 6 Feb in the UK, it was - almost beyond question - still 5 Feb in Canada. TharkunColl 10:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the irrelevance of this, but it should be pointed out that if he died between 3:30am and 8am, then it was actually the 6th in some parts of Canada and the 5th in others. AshleyMorton 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe can just say demise of the Crown occurs in Universal Coordinated Time.... Peter Grey 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Racial" Statistics

Okay, 70.81.117.175 made two adjustments to "Demographics", both of which I've removed. The first was to lump together "Norwegian", "Swedish" and "Danish" (I think) to create a listing of "Scandinavian" on the list of Canada's common ancestries. There could, theoretically be support for this, but the fact that we don't lump any other categories together other than ones that the reference has already done. The reference is appropriately cited, and should be adhered to, because without sticking to it (or some better one, I suppose), we will get into a ridiculous discussion. HOWEVER, my greater concern was that the same IP user added a list called "Racial Makeup of Canada" to the end of the section. In it, he/she boiled down what is a very complex table (the one he/she cited: [13] to eight "Racial" categories (even though the reference refers to the statistics as concerning "ethnic origin"), and then listed them. This smells of an attempt to prove something, although I will reserve judgement because I have no interest in accusing someone of something. Still, if it seems POV then it should, at best, be modified, I believe. AshleyMorton 17:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You were quite right to be suspicious of this edit, that IP has a long history of making ethnicity related edits that are either plain wrong or strongly questionable. The fact that this IP has made nothing but ethnicity related edits also worries me -- surely there must be something that interests this person other than ethnicity. Qutezuce 08:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Canada's GDP per capita

Canada's GDP per capita(according to the GDP per capita list of each provinces) is C$42,000 meaning US$38,000. Is this the result of someone not changing the value due to the higher dollar value, or is Canada's GDP per capita currently $38,000. If so, should it be changed, and does this mean Canada's GDP is actually around 1.2 trillion US User:Sic_one

The data for this value, and most other GDP values in other countries is obtained from the International Money Fund (IMF) values. Do you have a source for your stated values. -- Jeff3000 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product my source is wikipedia! i was just saying, someone should clarify those GDP per capita's because if that information is correct, then that means Canada's GDP per capita is US$38,000. I doubt the information is correct because Canada's dollar is much stronger now, which shortens the gap between American and Canadian money. Sic one 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

By area

There are couple users who keep adding the "by area" qualifier to the second largest statement. It is unnecessary for that to be there. Given the definition of larger, that relates to size, what other thing can it be than area. Can it be volume? countries don't have volume. If someone was referring to population, then they would write Canada is the second-most populous country and not Canada is the second-largest country by population. I will be removing the statement again. -- Jeff3000 21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any harm in being more precise. Many readers, for instance, might not have English as a first language and may not know the rather fine distinction between largest and most populous. - SimonP 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Liberal Canada" and gay marriage

I cut the following new addition as being uncited, somewhat informal, and overly-detailed for the summary.

Canada has been known to be more liberal minded than their southern neighbores, the United States. Canada has had legal gay marriage througout the country since 2000. Canada was the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage, after the Netherlands and Belgium. Although Canada has a significant gay population, it is mostly in the large urban areas, especially Toronto and Vancouver. Other large cities in the country also have large gay communities.

Perhaps it needs trimming, or placement into another article? Jkelly 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine as-is. Len W 07:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The cut addition was also inaccurate: Spain legalized same-sex marriage before Canada did. --thirty-seven 07:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sorta. Spain passed an explicit same-sex-marriages-are-recognized law before Canada did, yes. However, Canada (through court precedent) had recognized same-sex marriages before Spain did. I would suggest that this means that Canada "legalized" them first. However, I'm still unhappy with the term "legalized". There was nothing "illegal" about same-sex marriages before the rulings, it was just that the government didn't recognize them as marriages under the law. I can "adopt" a child without registering the adoption, and the government doesn't arrest me (at least not for that!), it just doesn't treat the child as if he/she is my child. That was similar to the way the law treated same-sex couples before the decisions, so I think it's best if we avoid the word "legalize". AshleyMorton 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly not "fine as is", as it is unreferenced and opinionated, and "Although Canada has a significant gay population, it is mostly in the large urban areas, especially Toronto and Vancouver. Other large cities in the country also have large gay communities." is not brilliant prose. Jkelly 19:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jkelly on this one. Not only is it unreferenced, uncited, but this level of detail needs to be in the daughter articles, and not in this page, remember, it's already too long. -- Jeff3000 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unemployment stats

24.42.193.126 has changed the unemployment stats. I asked him on his talk page to provide a verifiable source for the stats (which are probably right), but the given reference does not show that. I can't revert since I've reverted other vandalism three times today, but unless a verifiable source comes up, I will revert the value tomorrow. -- Jeff3000 22:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Like the editor said in the summary, check the cited source ("latest release from labour force survey"). It was updated on June 9, before the edit was made. heqs 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

Canada will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006 and Americans will respond with a resounding "Blame Canada" reference as their only knowledge of the country. This hour has 22 minutes and this dollar is 91 cents and rising. amen-Rainman71 05:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion - How many to include?

An anon IP has just changed the sentence in Demographics regarding non-Christian religions from "The largest protestant denomination is the United Church of Canada; about 17% of Canadians declared no religious affiliation, and the remaining 6.3% were affiliated with religions other than Christianity, of which the largest is Islam (1.9%)." to add "... followed by Judaism (1.1%)." I am concerned about this, but I'm definitely willing to be outvoted (or at least outvoiced), so I thought I'd discuss it here first. First, here are the actual numbers from the 2001 Census (the anon's numbers are not wrong, but that's not the issue):

• Christians (all): 22,851,825 -- 77.1%
• No religious affiliation: 4,900,090 -- 16.5%
• Muslim: 579,640 -- 1.96%
• Jewish: 329,995 -- 1.11%
• Buddhist 300,345 -- 1.01%
• Hindu 297,200 -- 1.00%
• Sikh 278,410 -- 0.94%

All others put together do not equal 100,000. As you can see, there is a massive drop from Christianity to the others. However, there is also a significant (almost half) from Islam to the "next tier". Then, we have Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism all very close by numbers - 300,000 +/- 30,000. I believe that including *only* Islam and Judaism is not appropriate, as it sets the cut-off at a very difficult-to-defend level. Thus, I see three options.

a) Nothing other than Christianity and some sort of "all others accound for 6.3%" statement. b) Mention Islam, but no others (basically a revert of the edit I'm discussing). c) Mention all of these ones above, perhaps with a table.

I personally support b), because I think it gives valuable information without clutter, and I think that a population larger than the population of my own home province (NL) deserves mention, yet it leaves details to other sub-articles. However, I would be also be satisfied with c). Anyone else? AshleyMorton 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff's already done it. Guess this is a) useless now and b) proof that I'm too wordy. AshleyMorton 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes b) is the way to go by the arguments you make. If anyone wants all the facts, they can go to the daughter articles. -- Jeff3000 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)