Talk:List of Canadians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

See also Talk:List of famous Canadians/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] The plan to edit famous Canadians article

See also: wikipedia:list

[edit] Volunteers

  • Ed Poor signing up as facilitator, cheerleader and coach. (You can also assign me work.)
  • Jeronimo, who also suggests to repeat the result found here to other, similar, lists for other countries.

[edit] The plan

Add bullet points here:

  • change the sub-list sports page title to something a little below "Famous".
  • add Bronco Horvath, who really is not famous (Gretzky is) but who in fact tied Bobby Hull for the NHL scoring championship and was an all-star player.
  • a sub-page can be where those who love Dave Keon or Dave Shultz from the big bad Flyers, or Mark Messier etc. can put him here and hopefully do an article.
  • bio on Bobby Orr
  • bio on Gordie Howe who is ranked in the SI top three EVER of hockey. (How long will it take before someone from prior generations so deserved of an article is done?)
  • edit all of the headings (there are far too many Famous Actors etc. with no article done who should be on a sub-list.)
  • there should be a separate list of hockey players; here on this list should be a few like Bobby Hull and Mario Lemiuex. Others like Dave Keon and Jean Belliveau that no non-Canadian (and most Canadian non-hockey fans) has ever heard of should only go on that sublist.

After someone writes a solid biography, then move it to the famous page.

And, make the extra effort to go to the talk page and tell why, if you think someone else is wrong, remove it (with your own explanation but adhering to these guidelines).

  • An idea to stimulate discussion: what about saying that, for each category (actors/writers/sports/etc) we choose, through consensus, say twelve (or whatever number) people to put on the main list. In exceptional cases, if there are thirteen very important actors, for example, than we could make the exceptions by consensus as well. This might require some consolidation (maybe The Band should be listed as a group and not as individuals, since they all seem to be Canadian). It's not a perfect idea, but may be worth discussing.
Tokerboy, this idea seemed good to me (even though I haven't read your proposal until now) and I've tried to do something like that at List of famous Canadians/Temp.
I'm not sure when the idea came up, but I agree with it also. dave 03:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Objective

To see the FAMOUS CANADIANS page (and all other countries too) be something that makes new, curious, visitors from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Korea, etc. etc. stop, look and listen AND come back. In simple words, an advertisement. Limiting the categories to the top three of four hockey players, baseball, etc. is a marketing concept that is designed to create interest. Endless names and lists turn people off. List 20 hockey players and which one does the visitor from Nigeria choose? List the top 3 and it does not matter.

[edit] Examples

The famous France page is pretty good and attracts a huge following. But, fill the page with fringe authors and a lot of newcomers will turn away and never come back out of pure disgust at the waste of time. Canucks don?t have France?s long history but they still have interesting knowledge to impart. American liberals like Ralph Nader and Michael Moore think Canada is the greatest place on earth but then far righties like Supreme Court nominee (failed) Robert Bork thinks Canada is the cat?s meow politically and judicially. Hopefully, after some new visitor reads about a Canadian scientist or a baseball player, or even Big Ben, who is a horse not a clock, will leave the Wikipedia site with several things:

1) New or expanded knowledge about Canada, Canadians, their values, and their beliefs; 2) A tiny seed planted towards the developing of a positive attitude towards others; 3) Simple enjoyment and a slight smile about the behaviour of Queen Juliana?s ?Canadianized? kids after they returned from Ottawa to the Netherlands; 4) A desire to return to Wikipedia; 5) A beginning of a desire to maybe do an article or even so bold as to create a List of Famous Syrians (I used Syria because the President has said he is addicted to the web.); 6) A germination that all Americans (I am dual citizenship folks) are not Yahoos, not self-centered, not anti anybody, and some are willing to admit it is time to look outward and understand others. Go Bill Maher! (The education system worldwide teaches kids almost nothing about the rest of the world. Canadians biggest complaint is not that Americans know zip about Canada, it is that Americans don?t want to know zip about Canada. But Canadians don?t want to know zip about Mexico except for the name of a resort beach in January. Note the Famous Canadians talk page snide comment of some basketball statistic on Steve Nash by an American who obviously follows the NBA. I attempted to explain Nash's reason for being a famous Canadian by using the Matt Stairs example.) 7) A growing curiosity and involvement that will, through well written ?famous? people articles, make a visitor want to look at the lengthy sub list and learn more about Canada and with trust in the NPOV of articles will want to read other pages about other nations and the links that can take then to thousands of works of knowledge.

[edit] More discussion

I'd like to take issue with whoever moved the Criminals down. Who do you think you are? Don't you realize the headings are in alphabetical order?

No, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that. I was trying to put the more prominent people ahead of the notorious ones. --Ed Poor
Which, by the way, makes a heck of a lot more sense than an alphabetical ordering. --Larry Sanger


I hope the "clique" is satisfied. You have created the mess I warned about. Now, the WWF wrestlers (who in fact is incorporated as an entertainment company not sports) are now ion the FAMOUS sports list of Canadians and several hockery players have been added. Within a short time every Canuchk who ever played Junion A, AHL, or the NHL will show up. The "FAMOUS CANADIANS" list is now so long and so worthless (as I warned and your little group crapped on) that no one will bother anymore. Thanks. It is really great to see the collective genius gathered here. Truly sad, to see people who claim to be any particular citizenship that suits their need at any moment and espouse things for which they in fact have no proven qualifications of any kind other than an ability to type on a computer screen to profess to be anyone or anything. Now that you have in fact insulted Canadians with your IMPOSED definition of how YOUR Wikipedia should be run, are you proud of your fine work? Suggest you have created a monster, because the disease your limited intellect has created will soon spread to the U.S., Dutch, French, and other pages. Suggest your abilities that appear to be limited to copy and paste from Google, be used elsewhere. Wikipedia is now being visited and scrutinized by someone from a major Canadian newspaper. It will indeed be interesting to see their article. Thanks for destroying a page for a Conuntry you know nothing about. I look forward to your screwing up the Dutch page, another country you know nothing about. .....DW

Wait a minute: someone put pro wrestlers in the Sports section? That doesn't make sense; WWF is entertainment, not a sport. Even if I don't like some of DW's personal remarks (like "limited intellect") -- I have to agree on this point. --Ed Poor


Eclecticetcetc: Don't discrimate against these other authors because that contradicts the policy IMPOSED against my pleas.

A) My claim to be Dutch is correct. If you don't believe me, why should we believe that you are in fact Canadian and therefore - in your opinion - more qualified than others to edit this list?
B) My intellect is not limited. I'm getting my Master's Degree in about a month.
C) I never copy anything from Google, while, IIRC, you've already been warned for copyright violations.
D) If you want me to stay away, then pllease stay away from the famous Dutch page youself, since you're not Dutch and therefore cannot be able to edit that page - by your reasoning.
E) If keep on insulting me, I will block you from editing Wikipedia. You apparently have no decency whatsoever. Jeronimo

The word famous has several synonyms: renowned, celebrated, noted, notorious, distinguished, eminent, illustrious (see Wikipedia:Definition of famous). Perhaps what DW and Jeronimon have been discussing needs some clarified criteria:

  • any Canadian I've heard of (like my favorite local band)
  • any Canadian who's been in the news or on TV
  • distinguished, illustrious, etc.

Let's discuss what we each mean by "famous". --Ed Poor

Lets not, and say we did. The meaning of the word is entirely subjective, to the extent that regardless of whose criteria wins out, the page is essentially worthless. One might as well have List of Tall Canadians or List of Canadians with bad haircuts (ooh! Garth Hudson!). Put everyone who is a) Canadian and b) does/should/might have an article about them. Then the readers can read about them, and decide whether they are famous and/or, whether they deserve to be famous. -- User:GWO

FIRST: The Wiki operators know for fact that Elliot and I are not one and the same. Do not insult me further with UNFOUNDED charges and, I can guaratee you, I am not going to be blocked out. Second, I never complained (if you (Larry Sanger and others) took the time to read) about the quality other than an accusation of laziness. My BEEF was, is, etc. that without a STANDARD for who is famous (or going the idiot route of "changing the name of the page") then the pages TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY loses its value. And, given that I for one believe this site, beyond the benefits derived from being sponsored by a psychological assessment group, can be worthwhile: a one-stop shopping point for an amazing amount of info (provided the info input comes from Kalula Balula (et al) in Tangiers etc.etc. who actually knows what is relevant knowledge worth telling the world about. THIS IS NOT A PLACE FOR YOU TO EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS AS CLICKED ON GOOGLE OF HOW THE REST OF THE WORLD IS. IT IS A PLACE FOR THEM TO TELL US. (I?m sure you still won?t get it.) YOU, not me, decided to open the famous Canadian page to every one who ever lived. Like me or not folks, I created one hell of a lot of well thought out and valuable articles for which I do not need to list on a Wiki resume and espouse my greatness (note, I even revealed the Dutch Prince's bribe taking that someone originally ?forgot? that they prefer to not air in public (aka the Dutch Watergate) because I don't believe in hiding reality or creating propaganda....makes a better world and fosters understanding etcetcetc. MY DAMN GOOD Famous Canadians page had learning (that I think is the encyclopedia goal, isn't it?) value. I am very interested in the Famous French and from its popularity, I?m sure as hell not the only one. Will be very interested in the Mozambique page and its TRULY and LEGITIMATELY famous citizens so that I can LEARN. (From THEM, not the wiz of Wisconsin.)

What is missing (boy, here comes G.W's friends on the right) is a little business savvy and marketing instincts. (A wiki problem that may soon result in its shutdown.) May God bless all those who claim to be dear professors of philosophy/math/toilet paper and the like, but all the damn Wiki articles in the world aren't worth dick, if only your tiny group shows up. Sorry, but GWO? In line with your last remark, there is no doubt that this stuff is way over your head. There are (May, 2002) 3.4 billion people with access to the Internet. Make an effort to present a Wikipedia that has value (AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE A MUSIC BAND STARTED UP LAST WEEK, or AN AUTHOR SELF PUBLISHED BY IUNIVERSE ETC. Let me repeat: Famous pages are good, they will in fact attract users and readers. But must be limited to Famous. I gave a solution before but was RUDELY shouted down by your clique members. This was in fact, as Ortolan88 said, a MODEL PAGE that I set up. I suggested a very limited number of famous in the various category lists with a sub list like what was in the authors. AND, I said I would use my experience and considerable (repeat considerable) knowledge of Canada to place these names but if anyone didn?t agree with me, I said to move the name (like the incredible world wide superstar, Time/Newsweek/People/Paris Match cover band the absolutely amazing, fantastic, brilliant, something something TANYAS) from the sub list to the FAMOUS PAGE list but put a note as to why you think they belong. THAT ladies/gentlemen solves the problem. But, I was put down, attacked and told no, no, famous is a blah blah (where is Jeronimo with his morons when really needed) So, you have a nightmare mess that no one will bother with. AND, there were 3-4 hockey players on the list. I can guarantee you, that before long every one in Canada will be listed on a page three miles long. All Canada has is good beer and great hockey. Sadly, I hate beer and ?. |DW

DW, we are all aware of what you think. But do you have any constructive arguments, something that can help solving this problem? Do you have a good measure for fame? Another solution? It doesn't help shouting around that you and your pages are so great and that we (especially I) are so crappy, and it certainly doesn't help other to respect your view. Jeronimo

I just gave you the solution: READ!

Yeah it says: I (Jeronimo) and everybody else is stupid and unqualified, you (DW) are the only one qualified to edit the aritcle. Great, that's a solution that's of any use. I meant a real solution. Any if you've written it before, please repeat it here if I've missed it. Jeronimo
User:Eclecticology Someone who one day says "famous" is wide concat(subjective) and anyone should be allowed to be added, then when someone and then me, adds/reinstates who we/I consider famousd, becomes GOD and MASTER and says no, they are not famous. You decided that a Giller Prize winner, (Canada's most presigious literary award, a noted and highly respected author John R. Saul and the HUSBAND of Canada's Governor-General are not famous!!!) You sir are indeed a fraud....DW

"MY DAMN GOOD Famous Canadians page". When did it become yours? The history shows that you first posted here on Sept. 7, a full six months after the earliest date. Even though I have the earliest credit in the history, even then I was amending what someone else had started.

I admit having made an ironic statement about having a green light to include almost anybody, but even that would imply some criterion for including such names. What I removed had nothing to do with any specific person or prize. It is a long list which already appears at List of Canadian writers. It is clear that it was put there out of vindictiveness rather than with any intent to improve the article. You have already stated your intent to sabotage this and several other articles, so I feel confident that I was reverting vandalism. Eclecticology

  1. This page is for discussion on how to make the article better. Most of us would rather focus in that than trade barbs like you're a fraud. You haven't called me names yet, which is nice -- for me :-)
  2. Most of us have already said we agree with you that "without a STANDARD for who is famous ... then the page ... loses its value." Can you hear us agreeing with you?
  3. Part of my (self-appointed) role as a moderator is to keep valuable contributors, like yourself, from being shouted down. Please help me to help you -- if you need help, that is.

--Ed Poor

Thank you Ed Poor. Her's the deal. We go back (and I will take it there) to where we were on the day Ortolan88 made the mistake of this a model page. I and I alone (boy some egos are really gonna hurt now) will set it up with "Famous Canadians". (If another knowledgeable Canuck wants the task instead of me, please speak up.) That is, par example, en anglais, at most 5-6 hockey players who are national icons.

Wayne Gretzky, Patrick Roy, Mario Lemieux, Claude Lemieux, Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Jake The Snake Plant, Bobby Hull, Terry Sawchuck, Guy Lafleur, Eddie "The Edmonton Express" Shore, Jean Beliveau, Mark Messier ... I could go on. Care to tell me which of these are not famous Canadian Hockey players? -- User:GWO PS: If you want a List of Canadian National Icons page, well, you know where to click...

Same for baseball etc., authors etc. Then, if antyone wishes to add to the sub list, God bless and welcome. If you wish to add to the famous list or move from the sublist, please do but with a note containg a brief explanation as to why you think they belong there. Simple, isn't it? ...DW

That would be fine if the measure was objective, and not "I, DW, approve of it". That's not Wikipedia. If you have an objective measure (although I doubt there's a good one), please present it, and convince me it's good. Once we have such a measure, we could indeed "guard" this page, and point editors to that agreement if they want to add persons that don't meet the requirements. Surprise me and come up with such an objective measure.Jeronimo


Yep, here come the egos and idiuots removing more names again imposing THEIR will in contradiction of previous statements THEY accepted. Because you do not accept the dictionary definition, my intellect certainly is not sufficient to write a criteria to meet your needs. Therefore, forget it. We can revert to continual adding and deleting. And, trust me, I will stick it out.

Oh great, we're back at that. If you're not even willing to discuss this properly, then please leave. Jeronimo

Oh, for the person labeling themselves as AxelBoldt and seeking much personal attention on his user page? My aunt (my spouses relative) would love to hear from an ?Expert? on Holland, particularly one with such wisdom as you profess. She is married to a Drost', also spelled Droste, and is working on the family history. They go home to the Netherlands every few years and have deep and lasting love for Queen Juliana, like ALL their family there, being the kind of people who understand the pain of the Nazis and the religious intolerance of 1963. And yes, she reminded me to say thanks to the people of Apeldoorn, in particular the school children for taking care of the war graves for the Canadians who died to liberate the Dutch. And uncle Pieter said he remembers the ENTIRE country's shock at learning Princess Irene had converted to Catholicm ONLY months after it happened when a photo appeared of her on knees at mass in the ROYAL CHURCH of JERONIMO in MADRID. And, oh yes, at the same day, American blacks were still riding on the back of the bus. AxelBoldt, please e-mail her at: drost-fh@onlink.net ....DW

Yeah, go on insulting everybody! That's great! Conversion to Catholicism used to be particularly shocking...for the Protestants. As you might know, the southern part of the Netherlands is Catholic. I don't think they found that particularly shocking. So "ENTIRE" certainly isn't true. Also, I don't see why, for that reason Jeronimo would be fascist. If anything, it's catholic. Although I used to be Catholic, I'm not anymore. Please stop making a fool of yourself with such unnecessary nonsense. Jeronimo
LOL... There's no need to accuse Axel of something he didn't do, I'm the one who pointed out the errors in your original argument (I'm surprised your superior intellect didn't pick that up ;)). And yes, you are still talking nonsense about Dutch sentiments. It's not surprising, given that you seem to be basing your arguments on what some emigrants remember of the events. Let me make it clear: Princess Irene's wedding is generally not remembered by people under 40 and is only significant to people over 60 (and even then probably mostly in conservative protestant circles). If you're looking for a real controversial royal wedding, then look no further than Beatrix' marriage to Claus that followed. And we all know how "controversial" he remained and he stayed in the public eye, whereas Carlos is off the radar nowadays. Your assertion that some Catholic/Protestant conflict still plays a major part is simply untrue as these days the Netherlands is a mostly non-religious country, especially in public matters. In fact, Irene's wedding may be one of the last such conflicts before the widespread secularisation of the 1960s. Sure, there may very well be some resentment among staunch royalistic circles, but to claim this is a huge issue, or that the name of the church that played a role in it is somehow controversial, is patently ridiculous. It's something you've either made up or have blown out of all proportion, solely in order to attack Jeronimo. Of course, I will now have to start monitoring your edits to Dutch pages as it's clear you're not a very trustworthy source, seeing just how much you let yourself exaggerate... Scipius 23:42 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Just for the record: Conversion to Catholicism by a member of the Dutch Royal Family required the approval of the Dutch "government". Princess Irene was stripped of her title and she and her children stripped of any claim to the throne. That ban, because she converted to Catholicsm, remains in effect to this day. No one, agreeing with such policies (aslthough you do approve of labelling entire nations as morons, I do not) but it is a fact. ...DW

Yes, that's all true. But not the ENTIRE country was in shock and Jeronimo is not an infamous name in the Netherlands. Where I live." But all that's far and far besides the point of this article. Let's get back at that. Jeronimo

And, I forgot to add, Princess Irene's conversion was kept hidden from the Dutch people and was in fact a hated Church because of its symbolism. For someone of your age, you would not even be aware of the "Pope in the White House" cries from Protestant all over the U.S.A. in the 1960 election....Dw

The point is that this is a screwed up page and another fascist named Eclecticidiot has started agreeing with me but is imposing his will on what you and others told me not to do. In Eclecticwhatever's pea brain, The "Tanyas" are famous but a Giller Prize winner is not. Guess I better post the HillBilly Six on the U.S. page and delete a Pulitzer winner. The National Post is gonna have a field day with this insult to Canadians. I really do have a hard time toolerating fools. Or, possibly it could be what USA today referred to when it said Al Quida would use the Internet to create conflict...DW

I can only take that last comment as an admission that you are an Al-Qaida member. Eclecticology
I really have a hard time dealing with people that can only insult others and do not try to engage in serious conversation. If you don't try to get involved in reasonable discussion, I'll propose the other administrators to have you banned. I hope it doesn't get that far. Jeronimo
"propose the other administrators to have you banned": Go ahead. I can just see the grounds: I called ALL Americans MORONS and DW was upset. Others called him a laiar: He proved them wrong with FACTS, going so far as to give ourt a family member's e-mail address while Elecectic and others hide behind an alias.... The administrators have brains, publicity agents, and lawyers... DW
The administrators here also know who the valuable contributors to the project are, whether they use real names or pseudonyms; heaping childish insults on them does not help your case. If you want to propose a criterion for inclusion here, then do so, and discuss it like a civilized adult. But if you continue to do things like call this "your" page and call good Wikipedians "idiots" and "fascists", then you are demonstrating that you have no intention of seriously working with the community here. You can and will be blocked if we feel your presence is more disruptive than useful. --LDC
In fact, I posted the following to Wikipedia-L: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-October/006143.html Goodnight, Jeronimo
Are we sure we can afford not to at least warn DW/Elliot? He's obviously not interested in Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If we hold these two pages to be policy, or at least an attempt towards it, how are we going to deal with others who may be disruptive, if we don't clearly show that this kind of behaviour is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia? Where do we draw the line between being useful and being disruptive if someone is allowed to continue to go to these extremes of uncooperative behaviour? Scipius 23:42 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)
I've already proposed DW and all of his aliases be banned, and so far have gotten nowhere. Jeronimo, don't let him/her/it drive you away, like he's already done to another qualified person. -- Zoe

What aliases?? I certainly do not want to drive Jeronimo away. I believe in freedom, more than most who attacked me and all MORON AMERICANS on these pages. (Perhaps I should post some of the intimidation and derogative, snide, elitist remarks against others (not against me) made by Zoe's qualified person. I just want Jeronimo to not issue racist statement or to make false accusations against me. And, when he says I'm not Dutch one day, then the next says he is, I get confused as to what is reality. Confused too, when certain types of people are famous one day but not the next. Any viewer will be confused by such inconsistencies. Unfortunately, ignorance is bliss so all one can do is fix articles posted that are wrong or outright false....DW

You still refuse to explain what you mean by racist and fascist statements, none of which I have yet to see from Jeronimo or anyone else in this discussion except for you, who seem to think that you are the only person who has a right to change anything on this page. -- Zoe

There are now two people, neither of which claims to be Canadians, who have decided that the Governor-General's very respected and famous author husband, John Ralston Saul, who at this moment is on national television standing next to HM Queen Elizabeth II of England, is not a famous Canadian and repeatly removes him and a Giller Prize winner from the famous page, but knowingly and deliberately leaves a band that few people in Canada, never mind anywhere else except maybe free BBC interviews, has heard of. Question? Why is this contradiction tolerated by those others who were so quick to criticize me? Double standard because I'm not part of your clique? Or, because you simply are unable to amit you are wrong. I can keep changing it and will get help to make sure Wikipedia is not butchered and controlled by people with a narrow point of view and intolerance....DW

P.S.: Happy Thanksgiving Day.

Yep, you know all about intolerance. And you STILL refuse to answer my questions. -- Zoe

I'm not going to repeat stuff 100 times. Read and digest it for yourself. However, I just realized you are in trouble with some from the clique when they return because you deleted some of their stuff. Now, show some courage and move the average musicians to the list of musicians so those that are famous Canadian musicians aren't insulted...DW

You have never explained why you use those terms. Please point to a line here on the Talk page or elsewhere in which you EXPLAIN why Jeronimo is a racist and or fascist? I've finished discussing this issue, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to revert your vandalism. -- Zoe

Deleting the very FAMOUS hockey players like Dave Keon, Jean Belliveau etc. that were listed by me, is facist intolerance and discrimination. I shall reinstate them along with adding numerous other Canadian hockey players who a famous and the famous author list. If anyone discriminates against me then I will already propose they and all of their aliases be banned....DW

Zoe, E, just because DW's an asshole, that doesn't make him necessarily wrong. Both of you have deleted real, useful information that he has contributed here, and called it "vandalism". You both should know better. For example, one of DW's lists of authors begins:

This was changed to remove Acorn entirely and remove the extra info on Atwood. It is our custom here on Wikipedia that lists of people may contain a short blurb about them. The years are probably extraneous, but something like "published 18 volumes", or the titles of one or two most famous works, is entirely appropriate and useful. Such short blurbs serve to further identify the person in question to the reader and give brief info to people who may not want to follow up with the full article. If you choose to leave a certain name here, don't delete the blurbs (but you can edit them of course).

That said, DW, we also have a strong policy here against "data dumping"; i.e., don't dump long lists of names here just because they might qualify. Put some thought into what might make this a more interesting and useful article, and only include those wbout whom there is something interesting to say. Especially where there are detailed sublists, including a long list here is pointless and distracting. "Consistency" is NOT a goal of Wikipedia. Well-written articles about interesting topics is. That means exercising some editorial judgment, and letting others here exercise some as well. Robots can copy names; that doesn't make a good article.

For example, there should be a separate list of hockey players; here on this list should be a few like Bobby Hull and Mario Lemiuex. Others like Dave Keon and Jean Belliveau that no non-Canadian (and most Canadian non-hockey fans) has ever heard of should only go on that sublist. This is a matter of editorial judgment, and there can be disagreements about that. You will behave like an adult and discuss those judgments with others here or you will be blocked. It's a simple as that--grow up or leave. --LDC

Although the DW's addition to the author section of this list was reversed, it still exists at List of Canadian writers. All he had done was to take that entire list and done a verbatim copy and past to this one. That paste up included transferring the exact details that you cited about Acorn and Atwood. He already expressed his intent to make the list unmanageable. I have now moved the sports personalities, including the hockey players to a new and separate list.

First, the proof is in the pudding that a properly done Wikipedia is worthwhile. Jean Beliveau is one of the most revered of all Canadians. Bar none. He was Captain of the most successful Montreal Canadians teams pof the 50s and 60s, won TEN, count em' folks, ten Stanley Cups, was given the Order of Canada Award, offered the position of Governor-General of Canada] by Prime Minister Mulroney but declined because his daughter was dying of cancer. He is adored in Canada as a gentlememan of the highest order. Letting the world, including Americans) learn about Beliveau, in my humble opinion is a damn good thing...DW

Second: This is exactly what I have been defending: Dumping Data, and making claims that certain "friends" or a particular band or hockey player that someone likes should be listed as a famous Canadian. What has been inserted here (after I set the page up and Ortolan88 called it a model page) was opportunistic and had no place on this page. I did not say any article should be banded in acvcordance with what you said: exercising some editorial judgment. However, read what transpired. I was informerd I had no right to exercise some editorial judgment. even after I gave detailed explanations and pointed out the quality and quantity of my articles. (Which no one has been able to criticize.) But, in the name of democracy, I went a step further and said: if you disagree, then add the personm to the "Famous" list but put a footnote for your reasoning. For that too, I was attacked, but when I added some hockey players or some of the most famous authors in Canada, I was deleted. That is a contradiction of these peoples own statements. And no, you will not block me because you need to asses facts first and weigh all the consequences for the validity of your project and its actions first. The facts will show I am correct, have had racist retorts directed at me because in fact and in law, I have followed what you have so clearly stated as Wikipedia policy. I am a valued contributor. In fact, if you have a panel to assess right from wrong, I welcome it...DW

P.S. Making fun of someone's dsylexia and labeling all Americans as morons, is not my definition of a discussion....DW

P.S.S. You said: For example, there should be a separate list of hockey players; here on this list should be a few like Bobby Hull and Mario Lemiuex. Others like Dave Keon and Jean Belliveau that no non-Canadian (and most Canadian non-hockey fans) has ever heard of should only go on that sublist. If ypou read this rather lengthy and stressfgul discussion, I have been saying EXACTLY what you said but was attacked and told I was wrong. Either you are right or they are. Please have your "arbitrators" advise if you or they should be followed because every time I followed your' advise, my entry was deleted, reversed, etc. ...DW

Yes, I understand that you have campaigned for limiting the list here, and that's good (though your recent changes have been data dumps, so I'm a bit confused). I've tried to follow the threads here, and it's not easy, but a few things are quite clear: (1) You are personally rather abrasive and rude. That in itself is not so bad--we all can be from time to time; you just seem better at it than most. (2) Some people have overreacted to your rudeness and thrown out similar rhetoric. That too is understandable, if regrettable. (3) You have, in reaction to them, only grown even more rude, and evasive, and arrogant--and worst of all, dismissive. You need to work on that; at some point, people have to take the high road and be reasonable even in the face of others' rudeness, and go out of your way to understand the concerns of others and show them some respect even if you do happen to think they're idiots. That's how you gain credibility here. Another way to gain credibility here would be to have a consistent pseudonym and log in with it. Always editing under an anonymous IP is going to lose you some arguments; that's just the way it is, and always will be. Having credibility here is valuable; for one thing, it gains you presumptive deference in disputes. If I don't have time to read through every little post of some argument on a talk page, I just look to see what side of an argument Mav is on; or Axel, or Larry, or any of the other people I have come to know and respect here. I tend to assume they're right until proven otherwise (and that doesn't happen too often). --LDC

DW, you have some good points. However, they tend to get lost in the mess of threads and insults. Why be abusive to people who simply disagree with you? It makes it difficult for people to focus on encyclopedia work when they have to sift through several screens of flames. Also, don't worry about this page being insulting to Canadians. I am one, and I'm not insulted. --Stephen Gilbert 01:17 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

I am going to be very nice (for as long as humanly possible). Tomorrow I plan to change the sub-list sports page title to something a little below "Famous". I added Bronco Horvath, who really is not famous (Gretzky is) but who in fact tied Bobby Hull for the NHL scoring championship and was an all-star player. However, as compared to my pet peeve, the "Tanyas", Bronco Horvath is a million times more famous than them, at least in Boston or amongst baby boomer NHL fans. If I am wrong with my approach, I will go away from Wikipedia because establishing and contributing to a page(s) that in fact provides no real value under the heading ?Famous?, would for me the same thing as participating in fraud.

It seems to me a sub-page can be where those who love Dave Keon or Dave Shultz from the big bad Flyers, or Mark Messier etc. can put him here and hopefully do an article. If I had control of Wikipedia, a name posted would automatically disappear after a fixed length of time if no reasonably written article had been done. Unfortunately, that requires money for a monitor, OR, wait a minute -- volunteers! This would eliminate the gosh, Davy Keon was the greatest keyboarders to the page who then obviously don't think he was so great that they won?t take the time to write a valuable article. Playing the psychological game, I did bios on Bobby Orr etc. but deliberately did not do Gordie Howe who is ranked in the SI top three EVER of hockey. I was curious to see how long it would take before someone from prior generations so deserved of an article was done.

So, I will edit all of the headings (there are far too many ?Famous Actors etc? with no article done who should be on a sub-list.) and I shall edit almost exactly as per the words of LDC who said:

  • For example, there should be a separate list of hockey players; here on this list should be a few like Bobby Hull and Mario Lemiuex. Others like Dave Keon and Jean Belliveau that no non-Canadian (and most Canadian non-hockey fans) has ever heard of should only go on that sublist.

I will add Beliveau to this sub list, but after I (or maybe someone else) writes a solid biography, then I/they will move it to the famous page. And, because I believe that Wikipedia has great potential, I will make the extra effort to go to the talk page and tell you why. If you think I?m (or someone else is wrong), remove it with your own explanation but adhering to LDC?s guidelines.

I will repeat my objectives: It is my desire to see the ?FAMOUS CANADIANS? page (and all other countries too) be something that makes new, curious, visitors from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Korea, etc. etc. stop, look and listen AND come back. In simple words, an advertisement. Limiting the categories to the top three of four hockey players, baseball, etc. is a marketing concept that is designed to create interest. Endless names and lists turn people off. List 20 hockey players and which one does the visitor from Nigeria choose? List the top 3 and it does not matter.

The famous France page is pretty good and attracts a huge following. But, fill the page with ?fringe? authors and a lot of newcomers will turn away and never come back out of pure disgust at the waste of time. Canucks don?t have France?s long history but they still have interesting knowledge to impart. American liberals like Ralph Nader and Michael Moore think Canada is the greatest place on earth but then far righties like Supreme Court nominee (failed) Robert Bork thinks Canada is the cat?s meow politically and judicially. Hopefully, after some new visitor reads about a Canadian scientist or a baseball player, or even Big Ben, who I would explain is a horse not a clock, will leave the Wikipedia site with several things:

  • 1) New or expanded knowledge about Canada, Canadians, their values, and their beliefs;
  • 2) A tiny seed planted towards the developing of a positive attitude towards others;
  • 3) Simple enjoyment and a slight smile about the behaviour of Queen Juliana?s ?Canadianized? kids after they returned from Ottawa to the Netherlands;
  • 4) A desire to return to Wikipedia;
  • 5) A beginning of a desire to maybe do an article or even so bold as to create a List of Famous Syrians (I used Syria because the President has said he is addicted to the web.);
  • 6) A germination that all Americans (I am dual citizenship folks) are not Yahoos, not self-centered, not anti anybody, and some are willing to admit it is time to look outward and understand others. Go Bill Maher! (The education system worldwide teaches kids almost nothing about the rest of the world. Canadians biggest complaint is not that Americans know zip about Canada, it is that Americans don?t want to know zip about Canada. But Canadians don?t want to know zip about Mexico except for the name of a resort beach in January. Note the Famous Canadians talk page snide comment of some basketball statistic on Steve Nash by an American who obviously follows the NBA. I attempted to explain Nash's reason for being a famous Canadian by using the Matt Stairs example.)
  • 7) A growing curiosity and involvement that will, through well written ?famous? people articles, make a visitor want to look at the lengthy sub list and learn more about Canada and with trust in the NPOV of articles will want to read other pages about other nations and the links that can take then to thousands of works of knowledge.

That?s all for now. Thank you, LDC. Common sense rises to the surface once in a while. I hope it lasts?. Amen. DW

(I will only log in for the famous Canuck page. My stuff on an array of other light fluff or heavy s?t, I prefer to do anonymously and don?t care if I?m edited to death so long as someone improves it. And yes Zoë, you do a good job running around Wikifying my articles because my brain and dyslexic mind (that?s an excuse) can?t handle them properly. Your effort is a very valued one, that is why I didn?t go after you too hard. ?.DW

DW, that's all fine. But, once again, how are you going to discern between the people on the list of famous Canadians, and the people on the List of famous Canadian hockey players? And then I mean a way to do that objectively, and not having it decided by you personally. What is your proposal for that? Jeronimo

Immediately you are testing me again and it is pure ignorance where your mouth goes before the brain. READ WHAT I AND LDC SAID. PLEASE!!!! I repeat, as you demand, "my proposal" for the umpteenth (and last) time on this page: Follow LDC's guidelines and also, if you think someone should be moved from the sublist to the "Famous" page, then do it but have the good manners and intellect to give a reason. I can assure you that Canadians do not want the "Be Good Tanyas" to be represented to the world on the Internet as their symbol of famous Canadian achievers. Also, I repeat again (gritting her/his teeth), please READ before speaking. LDC gave clear and specific examples of EXACTLY the type of people, naming names, establishing a reasonable basis and precedent for making a judgement. I repeat, I will make changes according to LDC's guidelines. If you think he is wrong, take it up with him, because I am tired of trying to bring a little professionalism and legitimacy to this page's presentation. Also, if you are from Eindhoven, and Philips has been in my portfolio before you were born, then, unless you are Canadian you are not qualified to put forth to the rest of the world who should represent Canada as their famous sons and daughters. Exception, might be a scholar with a Masters in Canadian Studies. That does not mean non-Canadians should not add articles to the sublist are make "cooperative" suggestions.

Just as I am not qualified to say who should represent the Netherlands sas their famous achievers. Example, I added painter, Jan Steen and the Dutch Premier who collaborated with the nazis to the Famous Dutch page. But, I will not do an article until I have done thorough research and if a Dutch person or painting scholar etc. puts Steen on a sublist, I will gladly accept their logic because there are only about four people on the entire planet who are qualified to assess the impact of various painters worldwide. Likewise, any name with no article I put up can be deleted. Example: I did the article on Diane de Poitiers. But I sure as hell didn't run to list her as a Famous French person. Voltaire, Rousseau, Napoleon are famous. Does anyone think that a version of the "Be Good Tanyas" in France should be on the same "Famous French" page as Napoleon?

No. But who is so deserving? Charles De Gaulle, perhaps. Voltaire? Victor Hugo? Thats a pretty short page. How about Pierre de Fermat? Edith Piaf? Marie Jose Perec? Michel Platini? (Unimportant, but very famous -- like Gretzky). Jean Pierre Rives? Emile Ntamack? Serge Gainsbourg? Charlotte Gainsbourg? Marc Caro? Gerard Depardieu? Marshall Petain? Moliere (critically adored, but not exactly a household name)? Brigette Bardot? These are all famous French people. None of them is comparable in fame or importance to Napoleon. Until you can explain where and how you make the cut, you're wasting everybody's time -- User:GWO

Give me a break, and stop insulting my limited intellect. Too, my spouse's uncle thinks the new Amsterdam band called the "Smoking Tulip Kings" are really, really, famous. They were interviewed on RNI and have made a record and appeared in at least two clubs! Should I not proceed to clutter up your Famous Dutch page with this famous band? And there are many more "famous" I and plenty of others could add to the Famous Dutch page. If you go that route you (I'm repeating again) you have a worthless list of mainly minor personalities that is presented to the world as "Famous Dutch." Shit, I know a Dutch person who is really famous because of his/her contributions to an incredibly great internet encyclopedia project which is of as much importance to him/her, me, and others, as the "Be Good Tanyas" is to the world of music. (I sure hope you are starting to get this. Maybe its a language barrier, because all the reasoning, logic, strategy, values, etc. has been fully explained on this page several times. No endless lists means exactly what LDC said. The Famous people pages for Canada or Cuba should be the representatives of their country to the world. One more and final time: I will abide by LDC's guidelines. ....DW

Regarding my e-mail to the Wikipedia-L mailing list yesterday, you're invited to explain your behaviour on that list (on behalf of Jimbo Wales, who owns the servers on which Wikipedia runs, and has the final word in most bans). It would be appreciated if you would subscribe, and discuss matters with me and the other Wikipedians there. (see http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l for how to subscribe, or read the archives).
Regarding the "plan" for this page you and LDC discussed, it still contains one flaw. There is no objective measure for famousness. I agree that you, being partly Canadian might be more qualified to judge than me, a non-Canadian, but this is Wikipedia, and pages are not "assigned" to persons, no matter their qualifications (as Larry Sanger mentioned, you can go to Nupedia for that). I have also mentioned this several times, but you seem to keep ignoring that point.
Once more, I will ignore your rant regarding the Netherlands, Dutch people, and me. Jeronimo
You're entirely right, J, there's no "objective" standard because there can't be. "Fame" is an inherently subjective thing, as is editorial judgment about what makes a good article. That's OK with me, and it should be OK with you too. "What makes a good article" may not be an objective standard, but it's a standard, and a useful one. --LDC
That's all totally cool with me. However, it's not totally cool with me if an editor starts treating other people's edits (which are subjective like his and just as good as his) by simply deleting them and not providing a solution. Sure, we can think up a nice list of Canadians, but no doubt somebody is going to pass by this list and will add a missing name, possibly a real famous Canadian. What gives me, you or anybody the right to delete that? It's valuable content, it's a famous Canadian, and he was not previously on the list. I'm willing to find a solution for this problem, and I think we can work one out. Jeronimo

Here we go again. The idiocy has started already. The proud fascist, Jeronimo, thinks I owe him an explanation for having a brain larger than a flea. Eclecticology has decided there are no Famous Canadian authors. That is vandalism....DW

DW, although there is free speech in the talk pages, I feel obliged to tell you that using words like idiocy and fascist to describe other contributors is frowned upon. It simply arouses bad feelings. Moreover, it detracts from our mutual task of improving articles. --Ed Poor

Dear Ed Poor: It is only idiots who vandalize pages and only facists who choose an alias that insults Dutch senior citizens and it is absolutely fascist to label all Americans as "MORONS" which I note you have not condemned. Plus, if LDC's proposals were not valid to Jeronimo or Electiolllyaie, say so in the discussion rather than vandalize the page and attack someone....DW

Actually, DW, I really like your well-organized and detailed proposal above (right under LDC's "guideline" thing). Apparently, J. didn't realize that the "fight" was over and wanted to get in the last word. (Jeronimo, please be nice to DW now!) I am against insulting people, especially senior citizens. I don't think all Americans are morons, although I agree that our lack of curiosity about other countries is appalling.
LDC is a first amoung equals in our little anarchic community here, and I appreciate both his reaching out to you and your gracious response. I look forward to seeing you follow your plan, and please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. --Ed Poor
Thanks Ed. However, I didn't want to get the last word, but I indeed didn't realise the "fight" was over. I fail to see how the solution presented is any different from original situation, and how it is a Wikipedia solution (with DW deciding the contents). Even if that has been explained many times (per DW), it has never been clear to me, and I would like a better exlanation in that case.
I am trying to be nice to DW, but him calling me an idiot and fascist (while himself displaying exactly the same symptoms he names as his reasons) makes it very difficult for me to do that.
Once again, I hope DW will contact the mailing list. If you really think I'm stupid and there's nothing to talk about, then please also do that on the mailing list. It would be appreciated very much. Jeronimo
I don't think you're stupid -- far from it. You did a superb job organizing all the countries of the world. Now DW and LDC have come up with a detailed plan for Canada (or Canadians). Why not let bygones be bygones? I'd love to hear what parts of DW's plan you do agree with -- which I bet is at least half. DW has met you half way, by adopting a gracious tone and presenting a plan. Please recognize this step, and let the negative give and take die of malnutrion (i.e., "don't feed the trolls" :-) --Ed Poor

[edit] Talk about improving the article itself

I created a Wikipedia:Plan to edit famous Canadians article page, and I invite people to move discussion on improving the article there. There's room to sign up, and I spent nearly a quarter of an hour setting up an intial plan, based heavily on DW's long comment above. Jeronimo, DW, and interested others: let's see if we can do for Canada what we did for the whole world. --Ed Poor

Ed, I appreciate your efforts, and will read this new page in a moment ( have to do some groceries, you know). For now here's my opinion on what to do, which for a large part actually agrees with DW:
  • I agree with DW that a large page with an endless list may not be a good representation of famous Canadians (although I do see it's use)
  • I agree with DW that for certain cases, it is clear who's more famous. Wayne Gretzky and Pamela Anderson beat the shit out of the "Be Good Tanyas", whoever they may be.
  • I agree that, as a Canadian, DW might be more qualified than me, or other non-Canadians to write about Canadains. However, that doesn't give him (or anybody else) monopoly.
  • I agree that it would be good to have a list (or collection) of famous Canadians that is restricted to actually famous Canadians
  • I find that having a list of anything is useless if 1) the majority of the linked items does not exist 2) the list is not annotated.
  • I find that the decision of who's famous and who's not should be decided on a objective criteria. Otherwise, we'll keep on having discussions on whether to include figure X or not.
  • Although moderately useful, I think lists are less useful than articles. If and when the Canada article is rewritten, there's plenty of room to mention some of the most famous Canadians, in the culture, history, politics, economy etc. sections (one could even add needed sections). This is even more so for the sub-articles on culture, history, etc. Such articles could give a much better picture of Canada to the world (that's one of DW's objectives, if I'm correct), as they can put things in context. If such a collection of articles were made in the right way, there'd be no need for a "famous Canadians" article, and we could do with a list of all Canadians with articles, as a reference list.

That's it for now, I'll be back later. Jeronimo


Jeronimo, you have insisted several times in the discussion above on an "objective criterion" for famousness. The one I proposed you didn't like, and you haven't proposed an alternative one. Apparently, you think the word cannot or should not be used in the absense of an universally agreed-upon objective definition.

But that is not the case. Virtually no word in the English language outside of mathematics has universally agreed-upon objective definitions. Can you define the word "red"? Some things clearly are red, some things clearly are not, and then there are lots of things where people (and proposed definitions) disagree. Where precisely does infrared start? Yet, the concept "red" is eminently useful. Shooting down an article like Red things and their emotional symbolism simply because red is not well-defined would be disingenious. I claim that "famous" is the same as "red". There are some imperfect criteria for famousness, and there are proposed hard definitions which are all not quite satisfactory. But the concept itself is useful. There is definite interest in famous people.

Suppose I sit in Senegal and want to learn about Canada. A page with scores of names, none of which I recognize, doesn't help at all. On the other hand, I would value it if someone else had made an editorial decision to produce a small list of famous Canadians, with one-line descriptions and links to articles. I wouldn't care in the least what criterion or definition they had used for "famousness", since all reasonable criteria will pretty much pick out the same people, except at the fringes, and I'm not interested in the fringes. Just like I'm not interested in the netherworld between infrared and red. AxelBoldt 17:17 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

Axel, I agree with you on this (even though red is probably slightly better defined than famousness). However, I don't think anybody would mind if the article on red gave slightly broader view of red, possibly including dark shades of orange. Similarly, we shouldn't care if somebody decides that there's another ice hockey player that's famous and Canadian. But DW decided that the page he made was "finished". I found and find that an anti-Wikipedic attitude. Sure, we can discuss which persons to include and not, and it would be great if we had a semi-objective (the only objective one, as you pointed out, would be interviewing all inhabitants of this planet) measure, the Google hits counter, for all I care. We could try it.
However, I predict that in, weeks, months, years from now, somebody will come and change this (or another "famous" list) page, by adding, removing people, and/or challinge our "semi-objective" measure of Google hits or famousness points or whatever. And that should be fine, because it's Wikipedia. However, in this way, it will give problems like the one we're in now (hopefully less dramatic), and I want to attempt to find a solution that might prevent such trouble in the future. I am aware of the fact that, however, this might not be possible. Jeronimo
I think the outcome of this discussion is crucial to the future of Wikipedia. As you said a couple of times, the Wikiproject page you and I signed on to (and which we hope DW will join) is likely to produce a standard applicable to other "List of famous X" pages. --Ed Poor

Jeronimo: To make it worse, you have lied and I for one am tired of it. You said: "But DW decided that the page he made was "finished". Jeronimo, just let it go.... DW (final remark on this overdone issue: Create good pages and in the future newcomers will too. Do things by example. I did and someone called it a "Model Page." Then again, I understand Ortolan88 is one of those American morons. With a little vision, one can learn as well as teach.)

You're not getting are you? I have the same goals as you: making Wikipedia the a great, no the best, encyclopedia ever. I'm trying to do that in a reasonable way, and if I misinterpreted what you have said before I am sorry - but that's no excuse to call me a liar (well, I am already a "fascist", so I guess this is less insulting). There are nice ways to tell somebody he was misunderstood. I would be god if you learned such ways. Jeronimo
As long as you think you're god, J., that's all that matters.

I will admit that I have been less than even-handed when it comes to DW and his alter ego, Elliot, but then, they combined with Helga to drive JKemp off of the 'pedia, and DW/Elliot is now trying to do the same thing to Jeronimo. -- Zoe

Jeronimo's holding his own. Knowledge comes from debate, and as Popper pointed out, it doesn't even have to be all that informed debate. What we've learned from the debate here is that the whole idea was a non-starter to begin with. It was worth trying for the reasons DW has provided, but we now know that it will not work. Jfitzg

Please don't insult me too. I am me, and while I have so far agreed with DW on the issues raised to date it does not mean I am anyone's puppet. And the hosts verified I am not DW on the day I signed in. And people choose to leave this project; it is impossible to drive someone away....Elliot


Really? Then perhaps you care to write to JKemp and convince her to come back. From what I gathered on the mailing list, we lost an expert contributor there. I've yet to understand what all the fuss is over this page. It seems very very silly. -- Tarquin 22:04 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)
JKemp has a thin skin. She could dish it out but she couldn't take it. Maybe you thought it was funny when she said all Canadians had medieval minds, but i didn't. The fuss over this page is it's too long. People are adding to it without even providing proper descriptions. Russ Jackson and Joe Krol were described merely as Canadian athletes, for example. And some of the categories could still stand some fleshing out. DW had a conception of what the list of famous Canadians would be for. I don't know what the purpose of this list is. Trontonian
JHK and Jtdirl have now filled me in on the whole DW problem, and I now understand that considerable provocation of JHK was involved. Perhaps requitring all users to provide a valid, non-free e-mail address should be considered. Anonymity seems to be the problem. I am now non-anonymous myself. Trontonian

I can accept LDC's view that a list of the really famous must necessarily be short, and perhaps the development of various sub-lists may help that to happen.

I do not accept that a self-appointed American should be the arbiter of who is a famous Canadian. I accept it even less when that epitome of the "Ugly American" brings shame on his own country, by applying techniques of insult, mockery, bullying distortion and defamation. But that's enough time wasted on DW; perhaps he should leave the decision of who best represents Canadian values to Canadians.

Perhaps we could adopt a strict limit to the number of people listed on each segment of this page, say the top 10 or 20. Beyond that limit adding a new person means removing somebody else. Each entry should also include a line or two about why that person is so important. In the case of a writer, for example, that means more than just giving the titlle of his book(s).

I don't think that Google hits is a very sound basis for determining famous Canadians. It puts too much emphasis on contemporary people who have not yet proved that their fame will be lasting.

I'm restoring three of the names that Gareth deleted from the musicians' list for reasons shown on the list. I would also consider changing the chaice of some others, but will wait until I can back my choices. I would likely remove Bryan Adams and add back Holly Cole. Eclecticology

Don't let me stop you, but Bryan Adams has won 3 Grammys (13 nominations), 16 Juno awards (24 noms), 2 MTV awards (4 noms) and had 3 Oscar nominations for music, and had a single that stayed at #1 in the UK longer than any other. Thats pretty impressive, especially since his music is almost entirely devoid of merit :) -- User:GWO
I support the idea of having a top 10/20/whatever for each category here. How do we decide on the entrants? Voting? I mean, I guess a Canadians (Americans, too) would probably have mostly ice hockey players with the sportspeople, while Europeans will more likely remember Ben Johnson or Donovan Bailey (well, they were both born in Jamaica...).
But to get work done again here, let's try this out. We can take the original list (before all the trouble) and take out or add people to the list as necessary. We can then discuss whether Brett Hull is more famous than Wayne Gretzky or not, etc. etc.
The limit of 10 (sounds the best to me) is also easy to explain for newcomers (one of the problems I saw), and people will be careful to edit a top ten. Of course, it should be clear from the article that we're listing the top 10 here only.
BTW, I see no reason to add categories if necessary. If there really are so many famous Canadian ice hockey players, we could add a category for Ice Hockey players - I think it's good for our Syrian and Senegalese visitors to see that hockey is really important in Canuck-country.
Let's try this. Jeronimo
To get going, I'm making a temporary page, soon to appear at List of famous Canadians/Temp. I'll make some lists there, and then the discussion on the lists can get going. Jeronimo

OK, I put a start for a list as I mentioned above at List of famous Canadians/Temp. It's not complete, as some fields are missing completely, or do not have 10 persons listed. Furthermore, not all are annotated sufficiently, and the linked lists should also be created. Let me know what you think of the idea, and go ahead and try to figure out which persons should and shouldn't be in the top ten.

I'm not sure whether to use the numerical lists or the current bullet lists - this would suggest some kind of order, I think it's better to have the lists alphabetical. Jeronimo

Whatever number we agree to for the top list, it may be a good idea to have twice as many on the Temp list. This gives us more to chose from. Eclecticology

Unlike his MGM partner Louis B. Mayer, who grew up in St. John, NB, Samuel Goldwyn had no significant connection with Canada. If any, he was only passing through on his way between Europe and the United States. I'm removing him from the list. Eclecticology

I've restored Painless Parker. I agree that he may not rank among the most famous of Canadians, but he does belong somewhere. Perhaps even in the category of famous Canadian eccentrics. Eclecticology

I changed the secondary description of Donald Marshall: the other famous court case (besides his wrongful conviction) he was involved with concerned First Nations rights to natural resources (eel fishing specifically). It had nothing to do with racism against aboriginal people.

Secondly, I altered the line for the actor Graham Greene to reflect his correct year of birth and the fact that he's not dead. His name still links to the page for the dead english novelist of the same name, but I'm not sure how to change this. Can someone else fix this?

RE: Graham Greene: it's done. Ideally, it should be fixed on all articles (and lists) mentioning the actor, but linking to the author. [1] -- User:Docu

[edit] British Columbian

move to talk:list of Canadians

Hi there! I have problems about famous Canadians or notable British Columbians. Who counts as a Canadian? I have added Leslie Cheung in the list of Canadians, but I am not quite comfortable with it. Leslie Cheung had lived in BC for just three years and then returned to Hong Kong after getting a passport, and he is not a rare example. Did I do the right thing? Or should this kind of "non-Canadian" Canadian be removed from the lists? Wshun

One of the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the right to leave Canada. No Canadian must maintain any ties with Canada (this is not true for landed immigrants) in order to maintain Canadian nationality. This is protected in sec. 6(1) entitled Mobility rights. There are many Canadians that live outside Canada; this does not (IMHO) make them less Canadian — perhaps other Canadians think otherwise. Many Canadians are forced to live in the US for financial reasons, jobs, or career opportunities. Even some Canadian corporations have many employees stationed in the United States; being in this situation does not make any Canadian less Canadian, they can always return to their mother country and take up residence there again; of course an immigrant who comes to Canada and becomes a Canadian citizen may also have other nationalities. Canada does recognize dual national status; one does not have to renounce their other citizenship(s) when taking the oath to the Queen of Canada like the United States requires of its immigrants. Alex756
Generally, anyone who considers themselves Canadian could be listed on such a list. Use your judgement. :) Martin 15:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Heros and Heroines

I have started a separate List of Canadian Heroes and Heroines since this can cut across the other categories. Edmilne 05:14, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble with including the Lucan Donnelly family

I would like to include the Donnelly family, also known as the Black Donnellys. They were the victim of an infamous home invasion and massacre, purportedly the end event of a vicious feud that griped the Ontario community of Lucan. The problem is that this family is more famous collectively than individually and I don't know what to do.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

-Kchishol1970

I don't see a problem with listing The Black Donnellys with a brief explanatory note. They certainly were famous. Sunray 03:09, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

The Black Donnellys are a footnote in Canadian history, and not recognizably famous outside the country. Landroo 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Canadians?

Should there be a list of fictional characters who are Canadian? Such as Wolverine from X-Men? nkife 07:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but it would probably be best to begin a separate article for that, good suggestion. mhunter 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What a hilarious concept for an article; especially when their identifying Canadian-nesses are listed as well; e.g. Will Ryker, of Star Trek:TNG, supposedly a Canadian, which gives him knowledge of, let's see, sled dogs, a little French, and a taste in short-trim beards like you find in cold climate-redneck bars (you'd think in LA's pool of Canadian actors they could have found someone who was bona fide Canadian...oh wait, Ryker was only part-Canadian, which I guess is why he sounded like he was Ivy League instead of bush league). Then there's the young wife of the exiled "French Canadian aristocrat" in that old sitcom set in the fictional Cicely, AK; he was supposed to be quebecois and French nobility, somehow, while his wife was Saskatchewan. Not that you'd know it from their accents, although I do remember something about cheese. I always liked the way they'd drive from Cicely to Whitehorse or Fort Nelson for lunch, though....or to Juneau in the morning, and Anchorage in the afternoon. Wish I had wheels that could do that....Skookum1 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops?

I edited the page and when it reloaded, I noticed there was some raw html showing at the top. I don't know if that was there before I edited it, but I certainly didn't do it on purpose. I just scrolled down the edit box and changed an entry...

I don't know how to do reverts, nor do I know what the html should be to fix it.70.66.9.162 16:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the broken html which includes the table with the Canada flag and Coat of Arms, which doesn't seem very necessary anyway. If anyone wants it back, then do it with correct html. 70.66.9.162 03:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to put Chief Dan George

Political leader? Entertainer? Author? I imagine for most people, especially outside of Canada, it's "entertainer" because of Little Big Man, but he's got a political and cultural stature that doesn't really have any comparisons; but he should definitely be here, somewhere.Skookum1 19:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sportspeople?

Is there perhaps a more lingually substantial term we can use instead?

[edit] Images

There is no reason for all these images here, they should be removed. 74.204.40.46 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They do make it more interesting to look at. Isn't that a reason? Wanderer57 03:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing this page

Is it necessary to read through the huge and acrimonious amount of talk on this page prior to making a contribution to the List of Canadians? If it is, I'm not sure I have that much time left.

Wanderer57 22:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title of article

Isn't this a list of prominent Canadians, rather than a list of Canadians? Shouldn't the title reflect this?

Wanderer57 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Canadian

Thus far in history, none of the Kings and Queens of Canada have been Canadian.

Wanderer57 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence? --G2bambino 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
An interesting, challenging question to try to answer. As I see it, here are three points of evidence, taking Canadian citizenship as the test of "being Canadian".
1 -- The Citizenship Act of Canada provides for becoming a citizen by:
a) being born in Canada
b) residing in Canada a certain number of years (number has varied) and passing a test
c) being a child of Canadian parents, though born outside Canada.
There is also a provision for citizenship to be granted by the Minister in special cases.
None of the Canadian monarchs were born in Canada, none resided in Canada long enough to qualify as residents, and none had publicly acknowledged Canadian parents. It is possible I suppose that they were secretly made Canadian citizens under the special case clause, but I very much doubt that.
2 -- The long-standing debate in Canada about having a "foreign head of state" would have been much different if the Queen had been a Canadian.
3 -- The Wikipedia article on Monarchy in Canada, in the section on the "Canadian Royal Family", notes that the Royal Family are "subjects but not citizens" of Canada. I realize that reading something in Wikipedia is not proof of its truth. However, having looked at the very lively Discussions about the article Monarchy in Canada, I gather the issue has already been debated there.
Thank you Wanderer57 21:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Citizenship is never really a qualifier when deciding who is and who is not Canadian. Firstly, monarchs cannnot be citizens of themselves, and secondly, there are a good number of Canadians on this list who were born, or came to Canada, long before the Citizenship Act was passed in 1947.
I had been wondering if there was a way to explain this at the head of the article. --G2bambino 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does this make sense?

In the Military figures section, it says that Alan Arnett McLeod was the youngest Canadian to ever win the Victoria Cross (age 18). I don't see how that can be when a little further down it says that Thomas Ricketts won the Victoria Cross at age 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.104.83 (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

McLeod was born Canadian; Ricketts was born a Newfoundlander. Ricketts later became a Canadian when Canada joined Newfoundland :) in 1949. So, strictly speaking, McLeod was the youngest Canadian to win the VC; Ricketts was the youngest Canadian to have won the VC. I can fix the entry to reflect this I think. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)