| content | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
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. | |||||||||||||||||
 |
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute. |
 |
Canada appears as a selected article on the Canada Portal. Congratulations and thank you to the editors of the articles that appear in the portal. A selected Canadian article should be well-written and interesting. As a selected article it showcases and promotes finer Canadian content and as such should encourage contribution of Canadian related articles. An excerpt from this article regularly appears on the Portal's main page. If you can update or improve this article, please do so. Please add other featured Canadian articles to the Selected articles for the Canada Portal. If you support or oppose this article appearing on the portal, please leave comments. |
This article is hereby recognized as a recipient of the FCGA Award.
|
Discussion of Canada's official name Future TFA paragraph |
Contents |
False Information
I know as a fact that the information under Demographics regarding the metropolitan population of major Canadian cities is false. Edmonton has nearly 1 million people, and Toronto nearly 5 Million. Edmonton has also a greater population than Toronto. I believe that the source, although supposedly is Statistics Canada, was either misinterpreted or perhaps not a valid source. I suggest checking this out, as I know this information is void. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macman175 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- several paragraphs archived to page history / courtesy blank per OTRS #2008080310009233 --Versageek 12:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sections
I think they're rather helpful. As you have written, the history section may be on the long side. --Blehfu (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs a normal map in addition to the animated gif. I wanted to look at a modern map of Canada but the gif doesn't even stop when it gets to the end. Quite aggravating. 71.36.206.189 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Language
Why there is a separate section for language? Language should be mentioned within Demographics section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- If there is a notable fact about Canada, it is that the two European "founding nations" spoke different languages, both lanquages persist to the present, and large swathes of political energy have been devoted to accomodation of the two major language groups. This goes beyond simple demographics and constitutes a central fact of Canadian existence - thus it probably does deserve its own section. Franamax (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Language goes beyond demographics into law, language, history, and many other aspects of Canadian life. --soulscanner (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"Dominion du Canada" referenced several times
The French-Canadian consolidated version,
- M. Olliver, "Actes de L'Amerique du Nord Britannique et Statuts Connexes 1867-1962", Publie par Roger Duhamel, M.S.R.C., Imprimeur de la Reine et Controleur de la Paperie, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 675, (1962).
references the long-form name of the Dominion du Canada many times.
ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 99.241.149.152 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Given the logical stretches that have been used in this debate before, your source, without quotes, does not prove that the form was ever used.
- Even if "Dominion du Canada" was an official long form, there is no proof that "Dominion of Canada" was.
- Even if it accepted that your source proves that the official long form was "Dominion of Canada" during the period 1867–1962, it does nothing to show that the form is currently used.
- The references provided in previous iterations of this debate support the claim that "Canada" is the only official name.
- Even if you were right it would show only the name of Canada in French, not English.
- The actual case of course is that this is all original research by you, and your 'results' fly in the face of clear statements by the Government of Canada. Please stop this. You are repeatedly raising a point that has been decided against you over and over again. Frankly your edits are bordering on the disruptive. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Factual Error under Foreign Relations and Military
This paragraph:
Since 2001, Canada has had troops deployed in Afghanistan as part of the U.S. stabilization force and the UN-authorized, NATO-commanded International Security Assistance Force. Canada and the U.S. continue to integrate state and provincial agencies to strengthen security long the Canada-U.S. Border through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.[45] Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) has participated in three major relief efforts in the past two years; the two-hundred member team has been deployed in relief operations after the December 2004 tsunami in South Asia, Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 and the Kashmir earthquake in October 2005.
Hurricane Katrina hit US mainland in August 2005, not September. Your own linked source reveals that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueDragonfly310 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good point that that may be misleading. The hurricane did indeed hit in late August but I think the intention of the statement is that DART was deployed in September, in the aftermath of Katrina. Perhaps that can be stated more clearly. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's exactly why I debated with myself about this edit before I sent it. It should be made clearer, IMO. BlueDragonfly310 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. I've removed the month from the sentence. I think that is both accurate enough and vague enough to avoid misleading the reader. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks and cheers to you too! BlueDragonfly310 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. I've removed the month from the sentence. I think that is both accurate enough and vague enough to avoid misleading the reader. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
