Talk:Canada/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive

Archives

Discussion of Canada's official name

Contents

Canada's area

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

Can anyone shed some more light on this apparent ... discrepancy? Help is appreciated. E Pluribus Anthony 00:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Further to this, I will investigate the varying figures and make appropriate editions to appropriate articles ... you're all warned! :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to my prior queries (unanswered! :(), I've investigated and reconciled figures regarding Canada's area. According to the Canadian Oxford World Atlas (upfront, p. 11), The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2005 (p. 760), and the Britannica Book of the Year, 2003 (pp. 573-4), Canada's total area is 9 984 670 km², with a land area of 9 093 507 km² and water area of 891 163 km² (8.92%).

I observe that, in the Canadian Global Almanac, 2005, another figure of 9 976 140 km² for the area is noted (p. 1), which was in the Geography of Canada article; however, this does not agree with a total of 9 984 670 km² which results from totalling the total areas for the provinces and territories (pp. 25-31).

To ensure agreement and consistency, I've made appropriate editions incorporating the larger figures (for which I've found more information) to the Canada, Geography of Canada, and United States articles.

So: in totality, Canada ranks second (to Russia) and is slightly larger than the US which is also slightly larger than China; however, Canada is somewhat smaller than both in land area (China is 9 596 960 km² and the US is 9 161 923 km²), ranking fourth.

Edits to other articles may also be required, or the above ones can be changed if the information can be refuted. Anyhow, please let me know if you've any questions. Happy ho-ho! :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the area should be in square miles as well...
I agree, but you cannot put it into the infobox, because it stuffs it up (it doesn't allow for sq miles to be inserted). If you desire, insert it into the main article text. enochlau (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Or put it into Geography of Canada - use the detail articles for specific details. enochlau (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree: due to length, these details might be more fitting in the subarticle Geography of Canada. E Pluribus Anthony 03:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to move the note about Canada's second-largest size status out of the opening paragraph, but was reverted. In my opinion, that kind of minutiae shouldn't be given such prominence, as it degrades the quality of the article by bombarding the reader with some fairly irrelevant trivia before relating the more important points. It's kind of sad, actually, and reminds me of the penchant that each U.S. military sub-organization seems to have for defining itself in some sort of obscure superlative--such as "first Air Force installation on the Thames" or "longest flight line of all midwestern bomber bases!"... you get the idea. --Yath 20:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguably, this is merely a point of view: what you may consider minutiae may be considered by other editors to not be. And it is wholly appropriate for the intro: this is a significant geographic superlative regarding countries, particularly when others are mentioned in the lead for comparison/context. And if it's so minute a point, the notion wouldn't have entire tables and articles/sections devoted to it. In fact, I think such commentary is rather out-of-whack: as the US Air Force says: Aim High! You get the idea. E Pluribus Anthony 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
As to "minutiae" and "obscure" superlatives: often (though not always), a superlative is what makes something stand out instead of remaning obscure, and can serve as a definitional mnemonic base around which to remember other details about the topic. As to the arguable point of whether such things deserve placement in the very first paragraphs of encyclopedia articles about countries: here is a posting I made last year in a discussion of whether it was "POV" to include the United States' superpower status in the introductory paragraph of Wikipedia's "United States" article:
1. I used the word superpower in the introductory paragraph: "Also referred to, with varying formality, as the United States, the U.S. (or the US), the U.S.A. (or the USA), the U.S. of A. (or the US of A), the States, and America[1], the superpower consists of fifty federal states and one federal district."
2. It was removed as being point of view.
3. I specifically linked to the "Superpower" article—which readers should see, along with many other sources (too numerous to list; both in Wikipedia and without), to determine the term's validity when it's applied to the U.S.
4. I inserted the term as a relatively agreed-upon fact. My insertion is not meant to say that superpowers are good or bad, and is not meant to say whether it is good or bad that the U.S. is a superpower. It is simply a thing that most persons familiar with the word would agree on. If you ask "What nation or nations is or are superpowers in the world today?", the first answer almost invariably will be the U.S., in whatever country you ask the question.
5. I inserted it in the introductory paragraph for this reason: it seems to me reasonable that an encyclopedia article's opening paragraph on a country should provide four basic bits of information: (a) the name by which the country is generally known in the language of the article; (b) the general form of the country's government; (c) the general geographic location of the country; and (d) anything that is highly likely to be considered a defining characteristic of the country, such as some sort of extreme (largest population, smallest area, northernmost, southernmost, coldest, rainiest, only one with absolute monarchy, whatever, ... or superpower).
6. The opening paragraph gives common names of the U.S. in English; gives a very basic description of the form of government; offers the general location on the globe; and describes a feature that, in this case, is not only a defining characteristic but, indeed, is considered by many to make the country unique (the only one of its kind) in the world. In introducing a country, it's likely to be interesting, informative, and useful to the reader to offer some detail that sets the country off from most, or all, others. We could point out the United States' high rank in land area or in population; but the U.S. is only close to the top in those areas, not actually superlative—while it is a superpower, and is very often defined, by experts and laypersons alike, as the single superpower in the present world.
7. Later in the same article are the words "Since the mid-20th century, following World War II, the United States emerged as the dominant global influence in economic, political, military, scientific, technological, and cultural affairs." That's a pretty good definition of a superpower. But, in the opening paragraph, we might want to be more concise, offering simply the word rather than the definition—and, as I said, the word superpower itself is a cross-reference to the "Superpower" article. There are many defining characteristics of the U.S.; but one of the most significant, and the one that may well make the U.S. unique in the present world, is the country's superpower status.
Please, consider these points. If there is disagreement, let's discuss it.
Thanks to all for their efforts with this article.
The first response to the posting:
The USA is as superpower. That is a significant and distinguishing status, and therefore appropriate in the introductory description. --StanZegel (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The second:
This is not a matter of American nationalism; the United States is objectively the nation with the world's largest economy and military-industrial complex. It's the country's most defining characteristic, and deserves lead mention. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 20:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Before someone jumps up to ask why I'm discussing the U.S. on Canada's page: the U.S. is incidentally the country at hand in my example—an example that, I feel, could or should be used with each country's article. Perhaps it's worthwhile in considering any reworkings of opening paragraphs about countries in Wikipedia, including Canada (which, by the way, from my POV, is a lovely country).
President Lethe 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Today, in Talk pages for the articles on both Canada and the United States, I'm just trying to make it clear for anyone who has doubts again; all figures from CIA World Fact Book as of 17 March 2006; top five countries by area:

Total Area:
1. Russia: 17,075,200 sq km (includes 79,400 sq km of water)
2. Canada: 9,984,670 sq km (includes 891,163 sq km of water)
3. United States: 9,631,418 sq km (includes 469,495 sq km of water) ("includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia")
4. China: 9,596,960 sq km (includes 270,550 sq km of water)
5. Brazil: 8,511,965 sq km ("includes 55,455 sq km of water) (includes Arquipelago de Fernando de Noronha, Atol das Rocas, Ilha da Trindade, Ilhas Martin Vaz, and Penedos de Sao Pedro e Sao Paulo")
By Land Area Alone:
1. Russia: 16,995,800 sq km
2. China: 9,326,410 sq km
3. United States: 9,161,923 sq km ("includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia")
4. Canada: 9,093,507 sq km
5. Brazil: 8,456,510 sq km ("includes Arquipelago de Fernando de Noronha, Atol das Rocas, Ilha da Trindade, Ilhas Martin Vaz, and Penedos de Sao Pedro e Sao Paulo")

President Lethe 17:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PM bias

There appears to only be liberal PM photos featured in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.31.20 (talk • contribs) .

...Are you saying we should include photos of the Conservative, NDP, and PQ Prime Ministers?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There are only two photos of Prime Ministers - one being the current PM and the other (Pearson) included to illustrate his & Canada's role in UN Peacekeeping and the Suez Crisis. Those seem perfectly reasonable, it is incidental that they are/were both Liberal PMs. But, in fact, further representations of PMs appear in the images of Canadian banknotes: 2 Liberal, 2 Conservative. I don't see any "PM bias" in this article. Pinkville 16:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Pinkville addresses the anon's comment well. Notwithstanding that, would it not make sense to include Sir John A. Macdonald, not for the purpose of providing political balance, but because he was our first prime minister? Ground Zero | t 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pinkville. If anyone should be depicted it's Macdonald – he was a 'Liberal-Conservative' initially – but he's also depicted in the article on the $10 dollar bill (as are others). Moreover, 9 of Canada's 21 PMs (or 12 of 26, if you count terms) since Confederation have been Liberal, so I don't see this as bias per se. The article, and everything depicted, can't be everything to everyone. E Pluribus Anthony 23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't bias. From an international perspective, Pearson is well known. When you talk to foreigners, the other one they always mention is Trudeau ... that doesn't solve the bias. There does appear to be a problem in the article, in that Trudeau is referenced - but only by last name, and with no link? I can only assume someone deleted an earlier reference? I added a picture of Macdonald ... I don't think this should offend anyone! Nfitz 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Holidays

Someone deleted the reference to St. George's Day which is a stat holiday in NFLD, because they claimed (on behalf of all BC'ers ...!!) that "no one in BC even knows what day it is on." As well, as a 42 year old Canadian, I have never celebrated St. Patrick's Day (and never will), so by this person's logic I should delete the reference to St Patrick's Day. But I won't. In NFLD SG Day is a stat holiday, and many thousands of people in Toronto celebrate it (I know this because I grew-up there). I suggest that other Canadians celebrate this as well, and that it should be included. TrulyTory 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Because St. George's Day isn't an official national holiday in Canada there's no reason to include it in the article on Canada. It makes perfect sense to include it in the article on Newfoundland and Labrador, of course, since it is an official holiday there. Pinkville 14:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, P. (this coming from someone for whom one parent is from Corner Brook); nix it. Also note that there are subarticles where such elaborations are more appropriate, if not already – Holidays in Canada, et al.
Again: this summary/overview article can't be everything to everyone: the article remains unnecessarily excessive and, given the abundance of information in it and redundancy with (underused, methinks) subarticles, this one needs a thorough pruning. I'll get around to this (again) at some point. E Pluribus Anthony 15:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine then. I will nix St. Patrick's Day which is not a stat holiday in any of the three provinces I have lived in. (Although it is in NFLD.) To include it would be to show a certifiable bias. Fair is Fair! TrulyTory 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes: actually, arguably all of the unofficial holidays listed needn't be mentioned in this overview. For instance, what of holidays in other calendars/religions (e.g., according to my almanac) that aren't mentioned? Thus, unless there's substantial objection, I'm gonna remove them and revise that statement. E Pluribus Anthony 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Remembrance Day? It's observed, but I wouldn't call it a holiday. The schools are always open this day in any part of the country I've lived, and businesses are open. Perhaps it's a provincial or bank holiday in some places ... but should it be on the list? Nfitz 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, it is NOT a Holiday, but a Day of Observance. Until recently is was a statutory/mandatory DOO in Western Canada (MB to BC), and most citizens (other than retail workers) still get the whole day off. My family goes to RD services in Manitoba each year, and wherever we go, the Service is packed. BTW, I like the latest edit that generalises the unofficial Holidays. TrulyTory 18:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, Remembrance Day is included among the "Government, bank and other holidays" listed in the Canadian Global Almanac 2005 (p. 911), so I don't see there being an inherent problem in including it here.
Moreover, I made a mild edit to the Easter Monday ref in the article: the former is the traditional and commonly observed holiday, while the latter is by statute; feel free to revise it with parentheses (around (Monday?) or what have you. :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Whose to say Canadian Global Almanac is correct? We can't start going by bank holidays, or else we'd be listing January 2nd (or January 2nd and 3rd this year, as January 1st was the Sunday). Remembrance Day might be a local holiday in some provinces, but in many of the provinces, even the schools are open! I'm not sure how full a religious service is, is a guide, as we would be having to add Yom Kippur and Maundy Thursday as well! In terms of Easter - Easter Monday? Well, the schools might get it off, and perhaps government workers - but it's hardly a wide-spread holiday, hence my putting it in brackets next to Good Friday. Nfitz 19:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's correct per se: I'm citing it as an example of what holidays to list without rationalising such a list into oblivion or overanalysing its components. Perhaps just Easter, no parentheses, is sufficient? One or the other. Remember, we need to brief here: wikilinked subarticles yield more than enough information. E Pluribus Anthony 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
According to this GOC page (http://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/lp/spila/clli/eslc/27statutory_holidays_synoptic_table.shtml) there are only 5 statutory holidays in effect across all jurisdictions in Canada: New Year's, Good Friday (Easter Monday in PQ only), Canada Day (Memorial Day in NL only), Labour Day and Christmas Day.
There are a total of 4 additional statutory holidays in Federal jurisdictions, but which may not apply to places of work that fall under provincial jurisdictions: Victoria Day, Thanksgiving Day, Rememberance Day, and Boxing Day.
There are also various other statutory holidays in other jurisdictions.
Note that there are some quirks. For example, consider the status of Rememberance Day in NS. The Statutes state that nothing can be bought or sold, and no employee can receive pay in exchange for work performed on Rememberance Day, except for the provision of essential services. But there is no entitlement to holiday pay on that day unless the employer makes special provisions. (However, employees in essential services who have to work RD are entitled to another day off with pay in lieu.)24.222.2.222 19:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! The current article lists the major holidays above, and I think it describes the topic of Canadian holidays accurately yet succinctly. Perhaps you should add details to the holidays in Canada article? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism.

  • Someone had deleted the entire article and wrote just "Canada sucks". being a canadian myself i find this to be pathetic. Since a lot of people seem to have a unwarranted vendetta against Canada,I think this page should be checked on often. I know I will. Pure inuyasha 00:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is oddly vandal-prone. Please do add it to your watchlist! Jkelly 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really find it odd. A lot of people seem to hate my country. Pure inuyasha 00:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't read too much into vandalism: it's a weapon of idiots who have no other forum to express their opinions. And here you can easily revert such nonsensical crap. Ask yourself this (whimsically): what does Canada suck that any other region doesn't? :) E Pluribus Anthony 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yea, pure stupidity. I added this to my watchlist. I am Canadian, but guess to has kool hacking skills and can trace this stupid guy - w00t w00t!! lol jk. paat 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking up this page at work was a rather tramatic experience with that recent vandalism of the Canadaian Flag.--AlphaTwo 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
"what does Canada suck that any other region doesn't?"....hmmmm...fish pops? :D We must have some kind of frozen treat here that others don't have! bcatt 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Most of these people don't even have a valid reason to hate Canada, yet many still do. I agree, Pure inuyasha. --Von 08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tourism link

83.52.101.200 has taken all of the link to tourism for every country (Canada, france, Turkey, ect. ). Should we put the link back? paat 15:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked, but it isnt restored. Ill add it myself, since it seems that it would be a good thing to have it. I wonder what will happen to the other country pages... paat 17:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm; on second thought, why should we include that particular link, and not another one regarding Cdn. travel, if at all? E Pluribus Anthony 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
If you come to a consensus to include the link here, then that's fine. Please don't go adding it back to all of the other articles. The anon's only contributions were spamming links to that site. --GraemeL (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I added the link in Canada, but not in the other countries. I just thought that maybe it was a kind of vandilism, since every other country was prived of its tourism link. paat 17:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[Go back to E Pluribus's comment on 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]
I dont understand what you're trying to say. are you asking why put that one if there others out there? paat 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the flip-flop/confusion. I thought SimonP's revert was originally to restore that particular travel link when, in fact, he removed it (i.e., is it spam?) When you mentioned it, P., I didn't (and don't really) think there's a problem in including it ... and especially (as per GL) if a consensus supports it. However, upon probing, the link doesn't seem particularly notable – there are a plethora of, and perhaps better, travel sites out there to include (Fodor's etc.) – so I'm neither here nor there regarding that specific link. I hope this clears things up. E Pluribus Anthony 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you revert?

I've been correcting a few vandilism acts in thsi article (surprisingly, its sumone that really linkes douches (showers in french... lol), but i havent been reverting, i just delete and correct. I would like to know how to revert any edits paat 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you find this article helpful: Wikipedia:Revert. --Ds13 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi protect

Given the rash of vandalism, it may be time to semi protect Canada? Astrotrain 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No, I don't think so. No more vandalism than the michael Jackson or Britney spears page. not unusual for an item with a lot of haters. Pure inuyasha 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree: Admins should block the offending users instead. E Pluribus Anthony 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it because of a rash today. This allows registered users to continue to edit, but prevents unregistered and new users from doing so. The IP was different for each vandalism, but the vandalism didn't change, so blokcing would not be useful. It should be unprotected tomorrow, which I'll do if I'm around, or another admin can do if I'm not. Of course, if you were an admin, Anthony, you could take care of it. Ground Zero | t 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Since I removed semi-protection yesterday, the article has been edited 12 times by various unregistered users. All 12 of the edits have been low-level vandalism. It's a waste of editors time to be constantly reverting. Ground Zero | t 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Names in intro

I'm going to remove the titles and names of the executive branch in the intro of this page. The United Kingdom, Australia, United States and France all don't have them (the only ones I checked). The paragraph is also just full of blue links making it extremely hard to read. -- Jeff3000 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I applaud you for your recent edits, J3000. I don't necessarily disagree, but read above and you'll note that it is/was a somewhat conciliatory approach to delineating Canada's government upfront. That's why I restored it; try to balance the two.
Moreover, I feel that the article can be pruned additionally/significantly, with much of the text being redundant: much of the content does (or should) be found in the appropriate subarticles. Good luck! E Pluribus Anthony 15:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll work on making the intro better (hopefully tonight), because as it is, it's too short, compared to other countries. We can possibly have the titles, but we should definitely not have the names, because Canada is more than just the current leaders. The overview section is also kind of weird, given that that the intro should be the overview. I was thinking last night that some of the overview text should go into the introduction, and the rest spread over the rest of the article.
And yes, a lot of this article should be pruned. The Culture section especially. -- Jeff3000 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've worked some more on it. The intro section is more diverse now, and contains some text from the overview section, which I've removed after making sure the info was in other parts of the article (except for the location of the official residences). I've also shortened the Governor's General article, which has some triva in it, and the culture section which was full of stuff that wasn't culture. The article, and intro, I think, still need some shortening. -- Jeff3000 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Great. I've mildly tweaked the intro a bit, importantly to include/retain notions of the upcoming election and dominion. I removed the immigration blurb as it's fairly nondescript. Thoughts? More to follow. E Pluribus Anthony 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

  • since it is pretty clear who the new prime minister is, I've edited the article to show Harper is prime minister Pure inuyasha 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, why not wait till the results are in. There are variables that could alter your prediction (even the possibility of a coalition, for example). Plus, until it's a fact, such a change should not be entered in an authoritative encyclopedia article. Indefatigable has already reverted the changes. Pinkville 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Martin is PM until he resigns and the GG appoints somebody else. Although it will probably be apparent by the end of today what resignations and appointments will take place over the next few weeks, let's wait until it actually happens, so that Wikipedia remains verifiable. Indefatigable 20:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not how it works. You need to wait until a new prime-minister selected by the Governor-General. If Harper doesn't win a majority, there is nothing to say that Martin, despite not having a plurality of seats, will attempt to continue to govern with a coalition - a bad idea I except, but it is Martin's to make - not yours. Also, as the polls are still open, and the polling has been very volatile, there is nothing to say the result is pre-ordained! I'm really not sure what is going to happen tonight, and it should make for great TV! Yeah, a lot of this other have said already, though they hadn't when I started typing! :-) Nfitz 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, but if Stephen Harper wins, i get to revert it. Pure inuyasha 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Only after Martin resigns, and the GG chooses and swears in a new PM. This process typically takes 10 to 15 days (10 days in 1993, 13 days in 1984, 15 days in 1980, 16 days in 1979 ...) Nfitz 20:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Nfitz is right: if you put Harper in as prime minister before he is sworn in as such by the Governor-General, the article will be wrong. This is a matter of fact, not of opinion. Even if Harper wins a convincing minority or a majority tonight, he will not be prime minister tomorrow morning. Check Kim Campbell. Her term as prime minister extended beyond the election day because she remained prime minister until Chretien was sworn in. Please don't put falsehoods into Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Though by the end of the night, it might (depending on Martin's speech) be possible to add a note on who the next prime-minister will be ... Nfitz 20:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The commonly-accepted term is "Prime Minister-designate". The American term "-elect" is incorrect because the PM is not elected. "PM-designate" is not official, but it is commonly used. Notwithstanding the notes I have added to the article, I would have no objection to adding Stephen Harper as "PM-designate" to the article, as long as it is clear that Matin remains prime minister until a new one is sworn in. This is just a matter of accuracy, not politics. Ground Zero | t 20:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
With that said, what is the problem with putting Paul Martin as PM and under it putting Stephen Harper as PM-designate on the column to the right? Wikipedia is here to provde information to people about Canada. While Martin is still the PM until the swearing-in ceremony, it would also be proper to list Harper's position to let people know that a new leader has been elected. Is this unreasonable? --68.54.101.229 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You'd get no ojections from me. Ground Zero | t 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but it's not what was being done. The editor who started this discussion stated a specific intention to edit the article as if Harper were already PM. We go through this every time an appointed or elected office changes — people start editing the articles as if the change were effective the moment the result is announced, even though there's always a transition period first. Michaëlle Jean did not become Governor General the minute her appointment was announced. Dalton McGuinty did not become premier of Ontario on election night. And on and so forth — the prior occupant still holds the title for about a week or two. Bearcat 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  •  :::You shouldn't yet change the pm section because even if harper won he is just PrimeMinister-Elect Stephen harper until he gets sworn in by governor general Michelle Jean.
  • For those of you who have been chomping at the bit to add Steven Harper as PM, please wait until this is a fact. He will be sworn in at 11:00 am EST today (6 February 2006). Listing him as PM right now is not a fact - it's anticipation, which has no place in an encyclopedia. Thanks. Pinkville 14:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

added information about stephen harper becoming prime minister.

  • all of this information has been gathered from the news. Pure inuyasha 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the wording. There is no "announcement" that Harper will become prime minister. There is no one to make such an announcement. The new wording reflects the actual situation. Ground Zero | t 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Referendum totals

"with votes of 59.6% and 50.6% respectively"

The percentages should be different, this doesn't add up right. I think instead of 59.6, its 49.4

You've misunderstood the sentence: 59.6 is the No total from 1980 and 50.6 is the No total from 1995. They're not supposed to add up to anything; they're the results of two different votes. Bearcat 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the vandalism lockdown

Since there is has been a paucity of vandalism, it is safe to say that most, if not all, of these vandals have had their accounts either banned or expunged from Wikipedia. Please remove the vandalism. It makes our country looks bad.

Ontario help

Is Quetico Provincial Park in Western or Northwestern Ontario? It actually looks like Southwestern Ontario to me, but I don't know how it is referenced in Canada. Any help? -Ravedave 15:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite the stub I added to that article, it is in fact in Northwestern Ontario (the image clearly shows it to be on the northwest edge of Lake Superior (at the Minnesota border), which itself demarcates the northwest coastline of Ontario. Mindmatrix 02:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok I'll go with what you say. To me its the south part of the west part of Ontario. -Ravedave 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It may seem a bit tricky to an outsider...but southwestern Ontario means the London-Chatham-Windsor area. It's not the southernmost end of the western part; it's the westernmost end of the southern part. Southwestern and Northwestern Ontario actually don't even touch each other. Bearcat 05:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You guys really are loonies :P -Ravedave 06:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Try living in Kenora...it really falls off the Ontario map. (Stormbay 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

New PM

Stephen Harper is the new PM since Jan. 24.

  • No, that is a common misconception. He does not become PM until the new government is worn in by the Governor-General. This will happen within two-three weeks. Until then, Paul Martin remains prime minister. Ground Zero | t 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

army vs. navy

"At the end of World War II, Canada had the fourth largest army in the world, behind the United States, UK and the former Soviet Union, including Russia." Surely this can't possibly be true. I think this was meant to say "fourth largest navy in the world". Or perhaps it was meant to say, "per capita". Is there a citation for this? Ah, now I see this is a very bad cut-and-paste from the article Military history of Canada, which states: "By the end of the war Canada was the fourth strongest military power in the world behind only the USA, the USSR and Britain." (my emphasis). I'll change the wording in the Canada article for now, but even this is vague and - I suspect - misleading. Pinkville 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, at the end of world war 2, Canada was indeed the fourth strongest military power in the world. This happened thanks to the immense war effort of the country, and the unofficial conscriptions that happened in some places. Additionnally, most military world powers before the war were european. Once the war was over, Europe was devastated. The only really significant armies remaining were the US', USSR's and China. Canada was mostly a distant fourth. Or, rather fourth "by default". Canada's military importance greatly diminished after the rebuild of Europe. As for saying the UK had greater military power, it is mostly because the entire Commonwealth's military was actually considered the UK's. More accurate and reliable sources are however needed. Dali 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. It demonstrates why it's important to be careful with wording: "fourth largest army" has a very different meaning from "fourth strongest military power". But the latter, although as you confirm, is accurate generally, it doesn't explain much. "Fourth strongest power" in what terms, exactly - does anyone know? And I think it would be a good idea to indicate that Canada was a distant fourth, as not doing so is quite misleading. I don't have any real expertise in this matter, but hopefully someone who does will expand and clarify this section. Pinkville 14:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Talk%7ECanada_Archive_7_be23.html"