Talk:Thanksgiving (Canada)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Americentric?[edit]

Several spots in this article seem to be written from the point of view an American, looking down on the Canadian Thanksgiving as a lesser or copycat holiday, and I recommend any comparison to US Thanksgiving be deleted.

Removed three references to Columbus Day in intro - this isn't about Columbus Day and the Canadian Thanksgiving Day has no connection to Columbus Day.

Mexican Thanksgiving Recipes[edit]

I have removed the External Link to Mexican Thanksgiving recipes as it doesn't seem relevant to ,Canadian Thanksgiving.

  • Mexican Thanksgiving Recipes]

--Bdoserror 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Canadians Don't Enjoy Thanksgiving?[edit]

I edited text "Although in English Canada Thanksgiving is often celebrated with family, it is also often a time for weekend getaways for couples to observe the autumn leaves, spend one last weekend at the cottage or participate in various outdoor activities such as hiking, fishing and hunting. The holiday is not as significant a family occasion amongst French Canadians, however."-- This is pure conjecture. As a French Canadian, I enjoy "l'Action de Grâce" just as much as any English Canadian, in every aspect mentioned above. To conclude that we don't appreciate Thanksgiving as the rest of Canada is completely invented and racist in its very nature. Cplbeaudoin 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's inaccurate and incorrect. But don't quite see how that's racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.66.67 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... Seriously, that's kind of true. L'Action de Grâce isn't as popular in Quebec as in American or Canada. I'm a québécois and I never heard of someone doing something special on that day. There's no turkeys or special dinner. It's more an american holiday. But since a few seems to enjoy it and do something, well, it can still be state that it isn't as popular as in the rest of the Canada. --Pascalbg (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a blurb about the holiday's limited significance among French-speaking Quebeckers. I have also provided a reference (in French). I can't speak for the self-proclaimed "French-Canadians" out there, or for Francophones outside Québec, but as for the Québécois, it's very (and I mean very) rare for families to do anything special in honour of Thanksgiving. It just isn't in the tradition. At best, it's just another long weekend; an excuse to take a trip or to have a party or something. Virtually nobody has a turkey, and if they do it means they have acquired the custom from some external source (like from American or English-Canadian friends or relatives) and they are going out of their way to do it. 184.163.86.47 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New photo[edit]

This article needs a new main photo. The current image of "The First Thanksgiving" is U.S.-specific. --thirty-seven 04:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same, it refers to the American Thanksgiving and was painted by an American. Perhaps a Canadian would be more fit to this fix. To each its own ;)
Kind regards,
Zack Holly Venturi 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parades?[edit]

I've never heard of there being Thanksgiving parades - could someone back this up? KdeK2 18:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchener-Waterloo does an Oktoberfest in late September/ early October. A lot of people, in my experience, consider it and call it a "Thanksgiving Parade". Celynn (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The parade was news to me - maybe it's a big deal in KW but it's hardly a national event. Also I don't think football is nearly as central to the holiday here (this is the first I'd heard of it) as in the US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.83.117 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extending categories[edit]

Should this also be categorised as an October observance? ACEOREVIVED 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some ambiguity about the date. Patricia Morrell (1977) Festivals and Customs. Pan. ISBN: 0 330 25215 1 gives October 11 as the date of Canadian Thanksgiving Day - she does not say too much on it, other than that Canadians eat turkey, cranberry sauce and pumpkin pie, and have church services similar to the harvest festival in the United Kingdom. However, according to this article, Canadian Thanksgiving is always on a Monday. Can some one explain this discrepancy? Either way, we could still categorise this as an October observance. ACEOREVIVED 20:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was the case back in 1977, but for as far as I can remember, it's always been the second Monday of October.--Boffob 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanksgiving in Canada is the Monday following the first Sunday in October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.68.25 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Discussion at Talk: Thanksgiving#Merge(?) Needed.--Boffob (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finaly! Someone mentioned turkey and pumpkin pie!

I spent the first thirty years of my life in Canada but could not recognise Thanksgiving as described in the article.

I have not researched and do not contend with the accuracy of the historical ties, though in school I was always that the celebration originated with the Plymouth Pilgrims, but to not mention turkey and pumpkin pie?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.100.167 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hi: Let's revert because some yankee numbskull has vandalized the article.

First, that's not appropriate. Second, if there's vandalism, go ahead and revert it, this will be a better place if you do so :) Calvinhrn (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundlanders and Thanksgiving[edit]

The idea that Newfoundlander's don't celebrate thanksgiving as a holiday is flat out wrong. It is a holiday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.110.39 (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory Holiday Status[edit]

I took a quick look into the matter and it would seem that Thanksgiving is recognized as a statutory holiday in every jurisdiction but the Atlantic Provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), as per the provinces respective Labour Ministry websites. This does not extend to places of work that are under federal regulation, such as those in the Telecommunications or Banking sectors, which more accurately reflects the information in the list on the HRSDC site. Calvinhrn (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving is a "statutory holiday" in Nova Scotia. Although it is not listed as a holiday in the Labour Standards Code, it is in the Retail Business Designated Day Closing Act which requires most retail businesses to be closed. As a result of not being a holiday under the Labour Standards Code, the Code does affect businesses that are not caught by the Retail Business Designated Day Closing Act. It is not accurate to say that it is an "optional" holiday in Nova Scotia, so I have removed that reference to Nova Scotia. Hebbgd (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory holiday in its modern sense is a widely misused term. Technically, any holiday established pursuant to a statute is a statutory holiday but the term is usually only used to refer to holidays with legal consequences. In any jurisdiction, there can be different types of statutory holidays. Some holidays have no legal consequences. Some require only certain businesses to be closed or prohibit only certain activities. Others may not prohibit anything but may require employees to be paid extra on holidays. Hebbgd (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monday[edit]

I'm curious if anyone can explain in this article why the holiday was officially set on Monday (as opposed to Friday or Saturday or Sunday) -- was it simply to create a long weekend? Currently the reason seems to be hinted at in the section of the article that currently says "both Armistice Day and Thanksgiving were celebrated on the Monday of the week in which November 11 occurred" -- but this statement seems to be incorrect according to the Armistice Day article, which says it was celebrated on the Sunday (not Monday) specifically to avoid disrupting the work week. -- Mecandes (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "Canadians might gather for their Thanksgiving feast on any of the three day weekend, with Saturday being the least common"; however, I find it dubious that more people celebrate on Saturday than Sunday or Monday. First, only Monday is a statutory holiday and many people work in industries which do not give time off on weekends, and second, it is easier to make all the preparations for guests (cleaning the house, shopping, cooking) with at least an extra day beforehand. An informal survey of four friends gave equal weight to Sunday or Monday which mirrors my own experience. None of us recall every celebrating on Saturday, which is an admittedly small and unscientific study, but as there is no citation to justify Saturday as being the most common day to celebrate I am removing that portion of the sentence. KADC 04:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinADCarter (talk • contribs)

When to change the 2009 date[edit]

Is it alright to change the infobox to read "2010 Date: October 11" any time soon, or is it better to do so around New Year's Eve? Schfifty3 17:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thanksgiving (United States) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you== —RM bot 13:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus spelling corrections?[edit]

(Since this comment has to do with this specific article and not the whole "US Thanksgiving vs Canadian Thanksgiving" debate, I'm posting here.)

I see in the spelling "correction" of the quote by Frobisher that his words were "corrected" to current spelling norms. However, since this is indeed a direct quote of historical material, shouldn't the orginal spelling be retained? I think so. The quotes are already in place indicating that it's a quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thanksgiving_(Canada)&diff=471050170&oldid=463774763

I'm not refering to the other changes made, one a needed grammatical change, and another the way dates are written: day-month vs month-day, as I don't know how Canadians habitually write dates. Since this is a Canadian-centered article, dates should certainly be written their way.

Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re Columbus Day[edit]

I'm confused by why Columbus Day is referenced and, particularly the sentence about it being celebrated on Oct 12 in most countries in the west hemisphere - are there countries outside the US that celebrate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.90.95.165 (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm American so I'm not personally offended by it, but I'd imagine that some Canadians might be offended by the sentence:

"Since 1971, Thanksgiving in Canada has coincided with the observance of Columbus Day in the United States."

Defining the Canadian holiday's date via an American holiday's date does seem UScentric. To reverse the sides, its something like saying "Independence Day in the US falls 3 days after Canada Day."

In any case, if a Canadian wants to remove that, I'm sure few people would mind. Smallbones (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Smallbones. I'm sure Canadians would agree. I hope there are some who are involved with editing this article. Wordreader (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and language under history[edit]

In the second paragraph under History, I think it might be worth rechecking the quote that references Robert Wolthall's sermon. "... the first sign, scale, and confirmation ..." should perhaps read "..sign, seale ..." This would be consistent with the way theologians described the meaning and purpose of communion, especially after the Reformation. Since I haven't read the reference book myself, I'm hesitant to make a change in a quote in an article, but I suspect that word's supposed to be "Seale" ("Seal" in modern English, as in a securing, verifying mark, like a notary's seal.) Communion as a "sign and scale" of Christ's grace doesn't really make any sense, even with past usages of "scale". Wasrts (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Nations[edit]

I've removed the following from the start of the history sction: "Various First Nations in Canada had long-standing traditions celebrating the harvest and giving thanks for a successful bounty of crops. Canada's First Nations and Native Americans throughout the Americas, including the Pueblo, Cherokee, Cree and many others organized harvest festivals, ceremonial dances, and other celebrations of thanks for centuries before the arrival of Europeans in North America.[1]"

  1. ^ "The History of Thanksgiving - First Thanksgiving". History.com.

As far as I know Pueblo, Cherokee, and Cree were all south of the border. Also the reference doesn't mention Canada - it's about the US Thanksgiving. I've no objection to First Nations being mentioned, if indeed they did celebrate a similar holiday, but please get a Canadian Thanksgiving reference and First Nations that are/were located in Canada. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about Pueblo and Cherokee, but most Cree people live in Canada. 206.45.166.191 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my mistake, I was thinking about the Creek. Pueblo and Cherokee are, of course, not Canadian and I believe that for anything similar to the removed text to be reinserted, a source that mentions Canadians and Canadian Thanksgiving should be found. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references[edit]

Regarding [1]. Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A method that works to separate text from long refs and make ref ends easier to find (while still keeping them near the text they support, and thus easier to find) is simply putting the </ref> (close ref) on a separate line (all by itself) at the end of the ref, and then adding a carriage return before continuing with the text - unless there are multiple refs, in which having a line which contains only </ref><ref> also makes the separation between refs easier to find. Carriage returns do not add to the length of text any more than a space character does (and much less than putting all the refs at the end). However, occasionally, some people mistakenly feel the need to "clean-up" such an arrangement.--JimWae (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just have to say "List-defined reference" are the worst format we have here. Content editors have constantly voted to eliminate this format altogether. Best to make the article user friendly.Moxy (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LDR also "hides" the refs when section editing, making it much more difficult to check refs, right?--JimWae (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Section editing is not possible - would need to edit the section and then edit the refs after. Not only that - but none will follow the LDR when updating pages - thus were you find LDR style you will always see the normal format mixed in. Just look at Michael Jackson. All it does is cause work for us as seen here at Avril Lavigne someone will have to come along and fix the new refs to match the LDR format - in the case of Avril Lavigne I have seen editors revert referenced material just because it was the wrong ref format. LDR's is nothing but a problem - noting user friendly about having to edit 2 sections to add one statement. Moxy (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the objections. The ref name="abc"/ is common enough (I count many dozens in this article), and this means there are already numerous subsections that don't have the full ref text inside them. Adding some more short cites and moving all full references to one place, where they are alphabetically organized, should make it more easy for editors to find the full ref. Currently they have to search for it or look for it, not knowing which section it is in. After LDR scheme is implemented, they can expect to find it in an alphabetical list in the bottom of the article. And sure, some people will not bother adding it to the bottom of the article - nothing that can't be easily fixed, moving those refs to the end and alphabetizing them is few seconds of editing (even less if script-assisted). Now, removing a ref because it is in a wrong format is a bad idea, but this is not LDR fault, just somebody not editing in a friendly manner. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or they can just edit a section and add the ref there - instead of the convoluted way described above. Again all I have to say is editing many sections for one statement is not user-friendly in anyway.Moxy (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Day?[edit]

I removed a paragraph from the lede referring to "Turkey Day" and the 1578 voyage of Martin Frobisher. Do Canadians really refer to the Thanksgiving Day holiday as "Turkey Day"? I have my doubts and it would need a reference if they did. The inclusion of Martin Frobisher in the article IMHO is a red herring (which is more likely what he ate rather than turkey). It confuses the concepts of a thanksgiving religious service and a Thanksgiving Day holiday. It wasn't historically important in the development of the holiday. I'd prefer to leave it out, but to the extent that reliable sources (not primary school textbooks) report it, I suppose that we can too.

Finally, I'd like to suggest that Americans who are unfamiliar with the Canadian Thanksgiving Day holiday, *not* contribute here unless they've done considerable research. While our 2 Thanksgiving holidays may be very similar in some ways, they are different in others. I'll try to follow this advice myself, though my parents were Canadian. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with removing "Turkey Day" or mentioning Americans from the lede, but the mention of Frobisher is in the article and the lede should be a summary of the article. The question of Frobisher's historical importance may be correct. I'll remove. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thanksgiving (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should Lockdown be mentioned in the History section?[edit]

I have a simple goal: to gain consensus on one question. Should the impact that the COVID-19 Pandemic had on Thanksgiving be mentioned in the article? I believe that given the massive global impact of the pandemic, a single sentence wouldn't harm the article, but I can see how others would consider it undue information. What say you? JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JellyMan9001: This may be almost a year old comment, but I agree a good sentence on discussing the impact that the COVID-19 Pandemic had on Thanksgiving specifically in Canada would be informative. Johnson524 (Talk!) 23:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thanksgiving_(Canada)&oldid=1210602810"