Talk:Canada

Template:Canada selected article This article is hereby recognized as a recipient of the FCGA Award.

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

False Information

I know as a fact that the information under Demographics regarding the metropolitan population of major Canadian cities is false. Edmonton has nearly 1 million people, and Toronto nearly 5 Million. Edmonton has also a greater population than Toronto. I believe that the source, although supposedly is Statistics Canada, was either misinterpreted or perhaps not a valid source. I suggest checking this out, as I know this information is void. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macman175 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Toronto is the largest Canadian city. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice it doesn't say "Metro area", but "city". There's ~2.5 million in Toronto (Humber -> Rouge, Steeles -> Lake Ontario)> WilyD 18:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada has a royal anthem. Whether or not that fact is offensive to anyone, it is still a fact. (See this for a reference to that fact). Removing this fact from the article would violate the neutral point of view policy. - Eron^Talk 14:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. I did check my own citation, and rather than cherry-picking one part of it, I read the whole thing. I think the pertinent paragraph, in full, is this one:

"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."

Yes, it does say "no legal status." It also says that "it is considered as the royal anthem." - Eron^Talk 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you police this site daily. How comforting. I guess I'll go cherry picking, thanks for the suggestion. Gawd save the queen.

I love how someone who doesn't live in constant denial of all non-negative facts about the Crown is automatically, and always, labeled a monarchist by those who despise the institution. Well, perhaps cherry picking is the best work for some; especially those who don't remember to sign their posts. --G2bambino (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New information in history section

I apologize for not providing sources on the information I have recently been adding, but this information is widely known in Canada and it would be very easy for anyone to find sources for the material I have just added. I have added the material to give a more detailed view of important events in Canadian history which are typically mentioned in Canadian history textbooks, such as mentioning modern-day issues involving aboriginal peoples such as the controversial Oka crisis in 1990 and the shooting of Dudley George in 1995, as well as more positive issues of aboriginal affairs such as the Nisga'a Final Settlement and the government apologizing this year to aboriginal people for the oppression of aboriginals in residential schools. Furthermore, continental free trade adopted in the 1980s has been a significant and controversial event in Canada and it deserves more attention.--R-41 (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in filling in the details of Canadian history since the 1980's. I really hesitate to begin condensing these additions, because I realize the amount of effort that goes into such summaries. However, the level of detail is more appropriate for the History of Canada page than this overview article on Canada (I've pasted your recent contributions onto that page). Please consider the following points when contemplating improvements to the article:

• The history section is now too long and detailed for an overview article like this. Whereas it's a good thing to revise recent history, the recent edits have overweighted events of the last 30 years. Aboriginal affairs and the National Energy policy are important, but do not warrant the space allotted, considering that much more significant topics such as the Conquest, Confederation, WWI and WWII are given much less space (a sentence or paragraph at most). They can be better summarized in one sentence, with wiki links to appropriate articles. Consider the weighting of these topics in the history books you are citing (a page count for each chapter will do) and you will get a better idea of a more appropriate weighting for an overview.
• Foreign relations topics such as 9-11 and NAFTA are indeed important, but I would argue that these events are more about current events and policy, which is why they are covered in their own Foreign Relations section. Here, they are annotated with references. I recommend removing these from the history section (or reducing them to a brief mention) and carefully editing the Foreign Relations section if you feel more detail is required. Better yet, discuss improvements to the article adressing these issues on the Talk page first.
• With regard to references, in an FA article, you need to be careful to include footnotes. The FA rating means that this article has been carefully vetted for references. You and I may be aware of pertinent references, but someone researching Canada is not and needs those references. Adding unsourced material decreases the quality standards of the article.
• Adding sub-sections is a substantial change to the format of the article. There has been considerable discussion of sub-sections within the history section, and others have successfully convinced most editors (including myself) that large numbers of subsections make the article unwieldy and more difficult to navigate. The usual way to such changes is discussion on the talk page before proceeding.

Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved recent economic and foreign relations policy develtopments from the history section to their respective sections. I also condensed other topics as much as I could. I also moved the text it replaced to the History of Canada page, where space considerations aren't a great concern right now.

I also removed subsections. I believe wikistyle guides discourages their use as they make the guide box unwieldy. Somehow, the history section is still too long. Anyone want to take a crack at condensing it even more? --soulscanner (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History section too long?

Is the history section too long? I'd gladly support any effort to condense it. --soulscanner (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sections

I think they're rather helpful. As you have written, the history section may be on the long side. --Blehfu (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs a normal map in addition to the animated gif. I wanted to look at a modern map of Canada but the gif doesn't even stop when it gets to the end. Quite aggravating. 71.36.206.189 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Language

Why there is a separate section for language? Language should be mentioned within Demographics section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a notable fact about Canada, it is that the two European "founding nations" spoke different languages, both lanquages persist to the present, and large swathes of political energy have been devoted to accomodation of the two major language groups. This goes beyond simple demographics and constitutes a central fact of Canadian existence - thus it probably does deserve its own section. Franamax (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Language goes beyond demographics into law, language, history, and many other aspects of Canadian life. --soulscanner (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)