Talk:Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Canada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 6, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
May 25, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
April 20, 2010 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Canada portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Geography portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject North America (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon North America portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Supplemental (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia.
 
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Notice: Before you edit the article PLEASE READ the following.
Toolbox
Archive

Archives
2003–05
1
2
3
4
5
6
2006
7
8
9
10
2007
11
12
13
14
15
2008
16
17
18
2009
19
2010
20
2011
21
2012
22

Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Oldest Aboriginal Presence[edit]

Bluefish cave has dates that extend to 40,000 BP. Unless someone is going to argue that the Yukon Palaeontology Program[1], Parks Canada[2], the Canadian Journal of Archaeology[3], The Canadian Encyclopedia[4], and a dozen archaeologists and paleobiologists such as Jacques Cine-Mars, Harrington[5], Burke [6]and Morlan[7]variously from Quebec Archaeology, the Archaeological Survey of Canada and the Canadian Museum of Civilization[8], are "not-mainstream", and can provide a serious explanation of why such prestigious Canadian institutions, journals and archaeologists are considered illegitimate sources, then this needs to go in the article. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps best to read over Settlement of the Americas first...pls propose any changes of this nature. Your quoting very old info-- Moxy (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
7 years is not old. There has been very little recent study of this assemblage -but what has been done continues to validate the data. New C14 dates are pending. Do you dispute the citations and sources? If not, I think a change is in order. I will awaits further input from more users I think.Thanks for the input! cheers Robert Brukner (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes I have a problem with 40,000 not even Jacques Cine-Mars old stuff that your linking to above says beyond 25,000[9].....pls dont add the fringe stuff or the ongoing debate here....its all coved at the settlement article (that gives dates for bluefish caves- did you see?). The sources here cover the date range and debate[10][11][12] ...unlike most of the source you have provided. One source you link to at the Canadian Encyclopedia has some good info ..The archaeological site of the earliest accepted occupation by man is BLUEFISH CAVES in north Yukon. Here, in 3 small caves overlooking a wide basin, a few chipped stone artifacts have been found in layers of sediment containing the bones of extinct FOSSIL ANIMALS, which radiocarbon dating indicates have an age of at least 10 000 to 13 000, and possibly 15 000 to 18 000 years ago....but best to cite new scholarly publications. -- Moxy (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The Burgeon article doesn't mention 40,000 years or support 25,000 years.[1] I'm not at all bothered by the possibility of much older dates, but it's common for new research to make old research obsolete, which is why we need to be careful to use only up to date sources. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal opinion ("I have a problem with ..") really cant help us determine the validity of a secondary source. The Bourgeon article mentioned is a comprehensive zooarchaeological and taphonomic analysis that resolves the issue of whether or not elements of the assemblage include cultural activities. The finding is positive. The article does not deal with dating, but does contextualize the findings within the age range of up to 25,000 14C yr BP. She rebuts the critique that the assemblage has no cultural attributes. New dates are pending. Anyway, these arguments kick the ball down the field, and are not pertinent to the question of sources. The dating and their contexts, do not alter with age. Tertiary, synthetic and encyclopaedic publications do not obviate the original findings published in reliable secondary sources. There is no current data on dates, pulled from the same contexts as Bluefish, and published in secondary sources, that undermine the earlier findings. To summarize, there are a host of reliable, accessible and verifiable secondary sources that support pre-Clovis assemblages, up to 25,000 and in some rare instances beyond. Are these sources challenged for reliability? If not, and as these are broadly recognized and accepted by numerous reputable Canadian institutions, then they should be included in this article. Cheers! and thanks for all the inputs. Robert Brukner (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a variety of ways to tackle contradicting sources that are genuinely all the same level of quality and reliability, ie contradictory academic journal articles by leading experts in the field from the same time period. For example, 'although the date range have generally been established at X,(bunch of refs) some scholars have established it at Y.(refs to support Y)' , or 'The date range is x,(refs) although some of the more recent research points to Y.(newest academic refs to support Y)' , etc. Establishing which leading experts in the field published in reputable academically refereed journals should be listened to over others is beyond the role of Wikipedia editors, whose role instead is to record fact. However, leading experts published in academically refereed journals will generally supercede other academic or official sources, unless their is some very obvious reason not to do so in some specialised case (for example what an individual feels, or an organization's official stance would trump any other sources on those two specific areas obviously). trackratte (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I am glad to see no more mention of 40,000...down to 25,000 ...25,000 to 12,000 years ago is a range that most talk about.[13] But i see no need here to mention the "allegedly human-worked mammoth bone"...as many researchers doubt that they are human worked bones to begin with.[14] In this overview article we should just mention the agreed upon facts and let the debate happen in the main articles on the topic.[15]

This is not earth shattering content. The proposed content pertains simply to the published research that one area of far northern North America (Beringia) had human activity at up to 25,000YBP (with 40,000 as a statistically anomalous outlier), even while the continent proper was cut off by glaciation and unsettled. No one is suggesting that the dates in question pertain to the settlement of the entire continent nor in any way undermine other archaeology. Again, the point isn't that anyone, or "most people", are comfortable with or like the content of this topic. Secondary sources for scientifically established dates assigned to this assemblage containing human cultural activity are published. Recent study (Bourgeon 2016) of the same assemblage, confirms human cultural activity. A redo of the dating of the assemblage is pending, but unpublished (as far as I can tell). At this moment in time the only question is, are the sources for these dates reliable? Does anyone claim that publications of the Archaeological Survey of Canada, the Canadian Journal of Archaeology, and the Museum of Civilization are not credible. Is this challenged? Are there more recent published reliable secondary sources for dates on this assemblage? Future re-dating may change the picture. But who can predict the future? Robert Brukner (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy:@Trackratte: I've made a "bold" edit, though it doesn't really feel that way. It is taken verbatim from United States#History. I believe it is non-controversial and hope it is acceptable to you both. Cheers Robert Brukner (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

looks ok to me...no outrages claims or terms like C-14 that most wont care about. I did fix the sources with ones that explain the debate. Those refs come from the USA article right...will fix those as-well later....that USA article needs some real sourcing work...can believe how much is sourced to media over scholarly publications through the whole article. As for the sources your talking about ....most sourced to Cine-Mars 1979 info...in one case a translation from 1990. But all good now. --Moxy (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Moxy:@Trackratte:Brilliant. I agree that shifting citations to scholarly references is the way to go. One step at a time. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Beringian Research Notes (PDF). 2008 http://www.tc.gov.yk.ca/publications/Blue_Fish_Caves_2008.pdf.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Unearthing the Law - Archaeological Legislation". Parks Canada. 
  3. ^ Cinq–Mars, Jacques (1979). [Jacques Cinq–Mars, "Bluefish Cave 1," Canadian Journal of Archaeology, No. 3, 1979, p. 1. ""Bluefish Cave 1"] Check |url= value (help). Canadian Journal of Archaeology, (No. 3). 
  4. ^ "Bluefish Caves". Canadian Encyclopedia. 
  5. ^ HARINGTON, C.R. "QUATERNARY CAVE FAUNAS OF CANADA: A REVIEW OF THE VERTEBRATE REMAINS" (PDF). Journal of Cave and Karst Studies,. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, v. 73, no. 3, p. 162–180. (v. 73, no. 3,): p. 162–180. 
  6. ^ "Paleoethological Reconstruction and Taphonomy of Equus lambei from the Bluefish Caves, Yukon Territory, Canada" (PDF). Arctic (VOL. 51, NO. 2). 1998. 
  7. ^ Blue sh Caves and Old Crow Basin: A New Rapport (PDF). Oregon State University Press. 2001. 
  8. ^ "Significance of Bluefish Caves". Canadian Museum of History. CMH. 
  9. ^ Bourgeon, L. (2015). Bluefish Cave II (Yukon Territory, Canada): Taphonomic Study of a Bone Assemblage PaleoAmerica, 1 (1), 105-108 DOI: 10.1179/2055556314Z.0000000001
  10. ^ William Haviland; Harald Prins; Dana Walrath; Bunny McBride (2013). Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Cengage Learning. pp. 219=220. ISBN 978-1-285-67758-3. 
  11. ^ Linda S. Cordell; Kent Lightfoot; Francis McManamon; George Milner (2009). Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia 4. ABC-CLIO. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-313-02189-3. 
  12. ^ Timothy R. Pauketat (2012). The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology. Oxford University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-19-538011-8. 
  13. ^ Laurel Sefton MacDowell (2012). An Environmental History of Canada. UBC Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-7748-2104-9. 
  14. ^ "Bluefish Caves". SFU Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. 2005. 
  15. ^ Alfred J. Andrea; Kevin McGeough; William E. Mierse (2011). World History Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 99. ISBN 978-1-85109-929-0. 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

I've went through the infoboxes of all the other Commonwealth realm articles & have noticed that Canada is the only realm not to have a coat of arms in its infobox, along side its flag. I recommend we add the coat of arms. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this has been answered a lot... There is no free image of the coat which does not permit us to use it. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The most recent extended discussion on this topic is Talk:Canada/Archive 23#Coat of Arms 3; on that page, you can see numerous discussions on this topic. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Very well. PS - personally I support leaving the coat of arms out, but removing the 'coat of arms' from the 15 other Commonwealth realms? would likely be impossible. This is one area where consistency will need to take a back seat. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Not just Commonwealth realms. Canada is the only state in List of sovereign states that doesn't have a coat of arms or an equivalent symbol in the infobox.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. It's sad that the Canadian government has copyrighted the official image and the one created based on the rules of heraldry looks so bad that the editors won't allow it to be used. If only other wikipedia articles had editors who cared as much about quality as this article does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with this one? Looks fine to me. — Jon C.ॐ 08:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a child has created it. There's a discussion about the Canadian flag below related to the colour used. Imagine if we had this image on Wikipeida and the other was copyrighted. No one would find it acceptable. That's what many of us feel about the rendition version of the coat. It looks wrong although it is accurate based on the rules of heraldry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The Coat of Arms is copyrighted, yes. But the Great Seal is in the public domain. Use that. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
And the seal was soundly rejected the last time you tried to insert it as it's unknown to all but a handful of Canadians. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
In case you forgot the previous consensus:
The consensus was that the seal of Canada should not be included in the infobox. The consensus was expressed both by numerical indicators of discussion participants and the strength of points registered. As expressed in the discussion, the seal is a device for sealing paper documents (ergo the name), and is not a logo, heraldic achievement, or other general identification symbol. The fact it has come to be used, incorrectly, as a general identification device in some other nations is irrelevant. The counter arguments that "it's better than nothing" and "it's an official symbol of Canada" are too weak to overcome the strength of the arguments for omitting.
For future clarification, this consensus determination neither prohibits nor encourages use of the Arms of Canada in the infobox, and is rendered only on the matter of the seal, which was the functional subject of this RfC.
Also for clarification, the term "seal" in this closure is used to mean "depiction of the seal" since the seal itself is a physical object, though the participants in the discussion seemed to have used this terminology fast and loose.
See Talk:Canada/Archive 24#Great seal? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
And it's no better to add File:Royal Standard of Canada.svg to the infobox either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
And we cannot link to the copyrighted coat of arms. Turns out that the Royal Standard was copyrighted and can't be used here either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1.) Why not? Says who?

2.) Royal standard ain't copyrighted. It's from 1961 and copyrighted expired in 2011. If it were copyrighted, it wouldn't be on the Wikimedia Commons. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FUR says so. Both images clearly list the Canadian Government copyrights on the images. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Standard is in Public Domain, but the image is not commonly accepted, which was my first argument. Coat is still copyrighted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the shield part of the arms is public domain, since it's from 1957. Otherwise it wouldn't be on the Wikimedia Commons. Copyright for the shield part of the arms expired in 2007. As for the standard, apology accepted. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The "shield" on its own is not an official symbol without the arms...thus has no place here. No source for it being a symbol on its own since 1921. The Dominion Shield -- Moxy (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
And there's also the fact that WP:CONSENSUS is now clear that it should not be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016[edit]

Fernando kaadou2002 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Which flag should be used[edit]

When a Pantone colour-correct version of the national flag was added on April 17 Flag of Canada (Pantone).svg to replace the earlier version Flag of Canada.svg I thought it was a good thing. No one reverted until yesterday, May 28, because we apparently need to discuss these things. I simply assumed that the silent consensus was enough. I will restore unless there is an objection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Use the Pantone. It's what the Canadian government recommends. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Official name[edit]

The page does not clearly state which official name should be used for Canada. E.g. Australia is the Commonwealth of Australia, as the En.Wiki page immediately states, while for United Kingdom the Kingdom word is already in. I understood that, while very rarely used, under the Constitution Act, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title. Also the En.Wiki page seems to support this position, here: the state is known world-wide as Canada and in almost all official acts it is named Canada only as well, but the official full name would remain Dominion of Canada. Could you please confirm whether this is true or not? And if it is true, would you agree to modify the first sentence of the page as follows:

Canada, officially also the Dominion of Canada, is a country in the northern half of North America.

Filippo83 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

First section says...."Upon Confederation in 1867, Canada was adopted as the legal name for the new country, and the word Dominion was conferred as the country's title.[13] The transition away from the use of Dominion was formally reflected in 1982 with the passage of the Canada Act, which refers only to Canada."--Moxy (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Canada has not been officially known the Dominion of Canada for decades. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Moxy and Walter Görlitz. As well, the Canadian Encyclopedia is wrong - the Constitution Act, 1982 does not use the term "Dominion". Both it and the Canada Act 1982 just use "Canada": Constitution Acts, 1867-1982; Canada Act 1982. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all, but I think the question is slightly different. Official full (long-form) name is often different from common name, even as used in official documents: e.g. Italy is usually cited simply as Italy (Italia) even in the Constitution of Italy; but the official full name would be Italian Republic (Repubblica italiana), as it previously was Kingdom of Italy (Regno d'Italia). I do not know if you get what I mean. Also, from the En.Wiki page about the name of Canada, which I linked also above, I can read:
While no legal document ever says that the name of the country is anything other than Canada, Dominion and Dominion of Canada remain official titles of the country.
In recent years, the terms Dominion of Canada and Dominion are occasionally used to distinguish modern (post-1867) Canada from either the earlier Province of Canada or from the even earlier The Canadas. The terms are also used to distinguish the federal government from the provinces, though in this usage "federal" has replaced "dominion". The federal government continues to produce publications and educational materials that specify the currency of these official titles, although these publications are not themselves legal or official documents.
Sources are in the page. I also came into this page, which, with a bit of paradox, states that Canada is the only Canada's name today, but that constitutionally Canada is still a dominion. I mean, it is not a big issue by itself, for sure I am not touched in any way by it. Just I would like to clarify if Dominion of Canada is still considered an official - even if not used - name of Canada. Anyway Canada should be something else than simply Canada: but I never read about anything like Kingdom of Canada or Realm of Canada or Union of Canada or else; it would be the only state in the world without any official title. I would just like to point out that the form Dominion of Canada I used is regardless of the ties with UK, but a mere name: not meaning what it meant before 1982 (1931).
Filippo83 (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada&oldid=726627938"