Active discussions
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, and on July 1, 2017.
Article milestones
February 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 20, 2010Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article




Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

Royal AnthemEdit

The note beside 'O' Canada in the infobox claims that "God Save the Queen" is the de facto royal anthem. This appears to be the premise for why it was removed from the infobox. "God Save the Queen" is in fact the official royal anthem of Canada, not de facto. the Government of Canada website says outright "While “O Canada” is the national anthem of Canada, “God Save the Queen” is our royal anthem." TrailBlzr (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"'God Save The Queen' is sung in the United Kingdom as a matter of tradition. It has never been proclaimed the national anthem by an Act of Parliament or a Royal Proclamation.
"While 'O Canada' is the national anthem of Canada, 'God Save the Queen' is our royal anthem."
As you can see, in the UK its is not the de jure national anthem. There has been no legislation that has made it the royal anthem here either, it is the de facto royal anthem. I suppose that if a Canadian were to write an anthem, it could be proclaimed the legal royal anthem over the current de facto anthem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Is the royal anthem not just the anthem of the Queen and Royal family? I mean it is right in the name - royal anthem. So I would think the appropriate place is in the Monarchy of Canada or Elizabeth II page. Canada has declared its official anthem as O Canada. Alaney2k (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Prior to 1982, Canada had no official national anthem and both were played in public assemblies (but not sporting events). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
That's the end of the debate right there. The Canada govt could have designated it an official anthem then, but did not. Alaney2k (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The government of Canada website cannot make it the official anthem, only legislation or possibly an order in council can do that. TFD (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we are confusing "official" (defined: "having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body"), with legal ("of, based on, or concerned with the law"). As already noted in this discussion, there is a suitable reference (the Government of Canada) stating that it is our Royal Anthem, by definition making it official. And as also noted, the Royal Anthem has no basis in legislation therefore it is not legally a royal anthem, but all that is required here is to determine its status as official, and we already have suitable references showing that it is, indeed, Canada's official Royal Anthem barring any contradicting official sources. trackratte (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It is not 'official' or 'legal'. It is traditional. There is no requirement for it to be played at state occasions. It gets played when the Queen is in Canada, certainly. As I've said before, the place to note it is on the Monarchy of Canada article. Alaney2k (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This debate may be dead, and feel free to note take this into account if as such. But the constitution of Canada is “in principle similar to that of the United Kingdom”, which is uncodified. Thus, would it’s matter of legislative authority really matter? It is sung commonly on public events (as a Canadian I know), and it is recognised as such at the Government we sit (which has already been discussed, however). (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Royal Anthem has been in the Infobox in this article since 2005 (15 years) making it an extremely long standing consensus. Further, in line with not being a vote, etc, there are numerous official sources underscoring the fact that the Royal Anthem is official and has been approved by the Canadian Parliament (see two of the sources in the mainspace), and is designated as such by the Government of Canada (one of the sources), as well as recognised as such officially by foreign entitites (see CIA World Factbook ref), and is also recorded as such by other Encylopedias (see Canadian encyclo ref). As such, it is abundantly verifiable, and a long standing norm in this page. As a result, I have not seen any evidence contrary to all of the verifiable and official sources, and no evidence of consensus to overturn the long standing status quo here. trackratte (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"Official" means it has been established by legislation, order-in-council or court order. Previous usage does not make something official unless the courts determine that it is binding. TFD (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. As above, "Official" literally means (as per the Oxford dictionary): "relating to an authority or public body and its duties, actions, and responsibilities". I put in five different sources in the mainspace that show it is official. Further, there is no requirement that a royal anthem must be passed by statute to exist in Canada. trackratte (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Restored page to stable version as per last talk about this here and Australia page. Fell free to start new talk.--Moxy 🍁 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of personal views, the general policy framework is that consensus must be gained before making a change.
Here we have the Royal Anthem being included in the Infobox for 15 years. Someone then removed it, and it was immediately reverted and disputed multiple times (initially by User talk:TrailBlzr I believe), which by definition means there was no consensus for the change (as per BRD).
Therefore, the 'last stable version' (i.e. the last version on this specific topic/area that was there due to consensus) is the version that remains until a consensus for change can be established.
Which means currently here that the 15 year old standing consensus remains until a consensus is formed for its removal. Which, as it stands now, there is no consensus for its removal.
Moxy, what Talk here are you referring to? As this specific section does not show any consensus for the removal, and upon looking at the Australia RFD, it does not implicate Canada oncesoever and as a result has zero bearing here. trackratte (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
There was a long talk and it was stable for a long time till you noticewd ...but its not a big deal...but best trim the refs need for all that junk that does not explain anything. Anyway we can get you to be less aggressive???--Moxy 🍁 00:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
No that's all good. Apologies for last, I misread the wall of removed text. I put four or five references as it seemed the case warranted it at the time given some points presented above.
I of course agree with not overburdening the infobox with refs, so a trim makes sense in principle. If it warrants them in the future we could always put refs in more condensed note format if required. trackratte (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Side note - Good luck in getting the 'royal anthem' added (or re-added) to the Australia infobox. Reckon ya's would get a big fight on your hands, there. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Out of scope, and is no more relevant than the differences between France and Germany, or Norway and Denmark for example as regards their anthems. trackratte (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Leif Erikson informationEdit

This is a discussion as per requested by user:Moxy.

To be blunt, why are you reverting mention of Leif Erikson being the first European to explore parts of Canada (a.k.a. make landfall in Canada)? I understand not making a direct or indirect/speculative connection to L'Anse aux Meadows as the debate may go into too much depth for the page. But to cut out any mention entirely seems odd especially considering this is the mainstream consensus view and reliably sourced. Additionally, the image was good quality and clearly in keeping with the tone and character of the section.RickyBennison (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok so look at the change I made.....if the main intent is to mention him best to do so in the context of the sagas and not in settlement.--Moxy 🍁 14:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Basically, there were three sentences. 1) Vinland 2) Leif Erikson 3) L'Anse aux Meadows. What I can do is change the order of sentences so it goes 1) Leif Erikson 2) Vinland 3) L'Anse aux Meadows. With the Vinland sentence between the Leif Erikson and L'Anse aux Meadows ones, this should de-contextualise them further in respect of one another. Are you satisfied with that? Otherwise an alternative would be to do 1) L'Anse aux Meadows 2) Vinland 3) Leif Erikson. RickyBennison (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get a chance to see the ref, but does it explicitly outline his involvement in Canada? I think it was an American history source too no? Is it possible to find a Canadian source? trackratte (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The refs for Leif Erikson were 'National Geographic' and 'The Canadian Encyclopedia'. So one US based with international coverage, one explicitly Canadian.[1][2] According to The Canadian Encyclopedia: 'Leif Eriksson was the first European to explore the east coast of North America, including areas that are now part of Arctic and Atlantic Canada.' RickyBennison (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Will look for a good sources this week. Again changed wording to match the terrestrial sources till an academic one is found. Problem we have is the source says Bjarni Herjólfsson was first. Also best not to have add image for something that had little impact on the country.--Moxy 🍁 20:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Little, Becky. "Why Do We Celebrate Columbus Day and Not Leif Erikson Day?". National Geographic. Retrieved 28 May 2020.
  2. ^ Wallace, Birgitta. "Leif Eriksson". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
user:Moxy The sources are fine as is the picture, which is at least as valuable to the page as the other pictures in the section: I will continue to endeavour to secure its presence on the page. You seem to have some kind of bias against Erikson being the first European to make landfall. I suggest you learn to accept it: it is the mainstream view nowadays. Look at the Columbus page and even there it states Erikson for North America. To clarify, and as previously stated, Erikson was not the first European to see/observe/find Canada, he was the first to make landfall. I have bent over backwards trying to incorporate your concerns but now you have continued the revert without reason, misrepresent the talk page consensus (which doesn't actually exist) approach. I feel you have been needlessly disruptive. I will not however get sucked into an edit war with yourself. RickyBennison (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Yup clearly scholarly debate if he was the first to make landfall and establish a colony. That said reading Helge Ingstad; Anne Stine Ingstad (2000). The Viking Discovery of America: The Excavation of a Norse Settlement in L'Anse Aux Meadows, Newfoundland. Breakwater Books. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-1-55081-158-2. now. As for the image ....simply not historical relevant to the country and causes clutter.--Moxy 🍁 01:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Walter Görlitz: Coordinates

The coordinates should be left as 60 N 110 W. See WP:OPCOORD. You should NOT set coordinates for a large country/region to be very precise, as it gives the implication the place is small. Look at the United States The coordinates in that article are 40 N 100 W. This is due to the fact that the U.S. is one of the world's largest countries, and that using exact coordinates with high precision makes a place appear small. To see what I mean, visit New York City, a city that is much smaller in area than the US (an entire country). Because of this, it is necessary to use a high degree of precision, so you land in the city and not somewhere else. Another example is Antarctica. Notice that the South Pole is used. The South Pole is NOT the geographic center of Antarctica. However, Antarctica a large continent, and the South Pole is roughly near the center. Using this coordinate makes sure that we do not mistake Antarctica as the size of NYC. Also, you mentioned that it is necessary to use a source for coordinates. The policy on this is very relaxed. See WP:OGC. Any mapping app is permitted to find coordinates.

60 N 110 W is a good set of coordinates to use. It is directly on a tripoint, and near the center of Canada. It is divisible by 10, which is not precise (on purpose). This shows Canada is a large place, as imprecise coordinates can be used. Using these coordinates is on par with other articles of large places (Russia, China and the United States to name a few).

If you have any counterpoints as to why we should use the coordinates you provided, please let me know.

Thanks, I-82-I | TALK. 00:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Centre of Canada...pls review WP:UNSOURCED.--Moxy 🍁 00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Several issues. WP:OPCOORD sates that they should not be precise. They're not. Longitude and Latitude are recorded in degrees, minutes and seconds, or decimal degrees. We are not precise as we only precision to minutes, not seconds.
OPCOORD goes on to say "Without a reliable source, the larger the object being mapped, the less precise the coordinates need to be." We have a source , and the value they provide is 62 degrees, 24 minutes north; 96 degrees, 28 minutes west. So that is the level of precision that I have used in the coord field. We could have also used the ref provided in the centre of Canada article.
So not too precise and sourced. It makes sense to stay, otherwise we get the edit wars that I saw that forced me to find the actual centre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Walter, these coordinates are for one of the largest countries on Earth. It is almost laughable to believe that the wording of WP:OPCOORD says we should use coordinates that precise for a country this large. The US has a center as well, and so does Russia. Their articles both use very imprecise coordinates, even though their centers can be found with a quick google search. For a smaller country (see Lesotho), we must be more precise, as the country is smaller. For large countries, imprecise coordinates are the best way to go. It may seem logical to use the geographic center, but this gives a false sense of precision, and a false assumption that Canada is small, requiring high precision to locate. Please let me know if you have any reasons otherwise. I-82-I | TALK. 03:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for ignoring what I wrote. Allow me to repeat that OPCOORD says we should use imprecise coordinate when there isn't a reliable source to precise ones. You do read that sentence, don't you? It's "Without a reliable source, the larger the object being mapped, the less precise the coordinates need to be", unless you missed it there or when I copied it here. Please let me know whether you understand that we have a source and that's all we need. Not only did I state it's not precise, it's sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Also from WP:OPCOORD "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one-tenth the size of the object, unless there is a clear reason for additional precision. Overly precise coordinates can be misleading by implying that the object is smaller than it truly is." You may have a source, but OPCOORD specifically states that overly precise coordinates are to be avoided. OPCOORD frowns upon using precise coordinates for large locations. There is really no reason to use the exact center in this article. No other articles on large countries do this, why should Canada be any different? I-82-I | TALK. 06:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
So once again, ignoring what I'm writing. Let me make this painfully simple: there's a reference. WP:STICK, unless you don't like WP:V.
Also, these are not overly precise. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I won't speculate why other articles on large countries do not this. WP:V is a pillar. If there's a sourced and well understood geographic centre to the country, it should be used. OPCOORD even states as much. Could you remind me what it says about references again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Walter, I am filing a WP:3O, as this is clearly going nowhere. I-82-I. | TALK 23:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Moxy already offered a third opinion. You clearly do not understand that WP:V is more important than a guideline, but as you wish. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Moxy's opinion was before most of the discussion even happened, so I think we should get a fresh one, now that this has turned to a back-and-forth game. I-82-I. | TALK 23:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: follows the article and I'm would have written something if there was reason to, but sure, pining...
As for the back and forth game, that was your choice. I understood immediately what the document suggested should be done, and since reliable sources are listed as an exception—one you refuse to acknowledge or submit to—you kept pointing, like the proverbial Wizard of Ox, crying, all but crying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'. The curtain has been pulled back and it reveals a reliable source—one that lacks the precision you claim it does. So no back and forth, but a regular pointing to "reliable sources". Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates, I see this: Which coordinates to use: National mapping agencies such as the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), Ordnance Survey (OS), and Geographical Names Board of Canada (GNBC) are usually reliable sources for coordinates. The GEOnet Names Server (GNS) database is not reliable. Always double check the coordinates on an internet mapping service. "60 N 110 W" is verifiably within Canada. I can find many WP:RS of many coordinates that are also within Canada, using those reliable sources that were helpfully provided. I also see For geographical features with an area, such as lakes, reservoirs, and islands, use a point reasonably in the center of the feature. (Remember not to specify too much precision; see Precision guidelines below.) on that page. Canada is an area, so we are to use a point reasonably in the center. On top of which, I see no reason to discard WP:OPCOORD, what makes this article special? The guideline of not misleading readers with overly precise coordinates seems completely rational, why would we want to ignore it on this article? If there's a sourced and well understood geographic centre to the country, it should be used. This seems like your opinion. I'm sure that with precise modern day mapping, we could calculate the geographic center of Canada down to the millimeter. And yet we choose to round coordinates to not give false impressions of size (see: Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Simple_calculations). Leijurv (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Just noticed Centre of Canada. It looks like we have WP:RS pointing to disagreement as to what actually constitutes the center of Canada. All the more reason to use an intentionally imprecise coordinate near the center, as guided by WP:OPCOORD. Leijurv (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the 3rd opinion. I think a consensus has been reached that 60 N 110 W is a good coordinate to use, and am reverting to that. I-82-I. | TALK 01:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Do we have a better sources then the Atlas of Canada? Definitely no consensus to change if there is not a better source. A project essay will dictate things over reliable sources?? WP:CONLIMITED.--Moxy 🍁 02:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Clarifying: are you asking for a source that demonstrates that the coordinate is within Canada? Or a source stating that the coordinate is somehow representative of Canada? Or is a "center" of Canada? Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
A source for the change...Don't care about a project essay or comparisons to an article that is being delisted from GA status. As an FA article or any article for that matter we should use and provide a source for our readers. We are a jumping point for more information. Thus far the change gives our readers zero information on the topic, while at the same time removing a reputable source.--Moxy 🍁 02:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I still am having a hard time understanding. You aren't looking for a source stating where the center of Canada is? I'm not sure what that implies... you want a source that just straight out says "These coordinates should be used for Canada"? Leijurv (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Source that explains what the numbers mean. So just like the one in the article right now. We need to provide a source to explain to our readers why we use certain numbers and what they mean. Don't care if other pages don't have sources. this case we do! So we are not going to omit it based on a projecr essay...but rather if another reliable source is presented we can chang it. If we have conflicting sources we can then debate the merits of each. Verifiability is a core principal because it allows others to research more and should be your project goal to use sources whenever available...not guess work when there is no need.--Moxy 🍁 02:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Why are we reverting this? A source is necessary for most things, but there are a few problems with wanting a source here. One is that the coordinates are not supposed to show the location of the center of a country. As I have said numerous times here, articles of other large countries (like the US, China, and Russia), do not use the exact center. Also, why are we blatantly ignoring this line from WP:OPCOORD? "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one-tenth the size of the object, unless there is a clear reason for additional precision. Overly precise coordinates can be misleading by implying that the object is smaller than it truly is." I also agree with Leijurv here, we do not need a source to back up the fact that a set up coordinates are within Canada, this is borderline absurd. One can demonstrate with a simple mapping app that 60 N 110 W is within Canada, and OPCOORD says we should use imprecise coordinates. What is the confusion here about? I-82-I. | TALK 07:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
We need to provide a source to explain to our readers why we use certain numbers and what they mean. Do we? For coordinates? I'm actually asking. I just looked through over a dozen other Wikipedia articles on countries and every single one used integer degrees (without minutes) and did not cite anything. I don't think I've ever seen a citation on coordinates. Isn't it trivially verifiable that the coordinates are within the country? I understand that you don't care if other pages don't have sources, because some pages are improperly sourced, but it does start to become a pattern once you're looking at dozens. Furthermore, the source is literally in a HTML comment, which seems a little hacky, and should be a nudge in the direction of "this is unnecessary" since you can't reasonably put a citation on the coord template at the top of the article. Leijurv (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we could compromise by rounding off the minutes and keeping the degrees, but not rounding the degrees to the nearest 10? <sarcasm> That way the "citation" of the source could remain, if someone wanted to verify that the coordinates were within Canada they could simply click Edit source and notice the HTML comment. This is important because verifiability.</sarcasm> So, 62° 96° is what I propose as a compromise. And perhaps we could add a See also link (or equivalent) to Centre of Canada if they want to read more. Leijurv (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Very true. No other country article uses a source for coordinates, and it is ridiculous to think one is needed. When guidelines talk about needing references, they are referring to page content, not country coordinates. Also, we have a clear guideline from OPCOORD saying to use a reasonable coordinate that is imprecise within the country. I honestly do not understand the fuss. Yes, this is a featured article, but no, we do not need to source coordinates. The idea of page coordinates is that a user can see a location within a maps app. 60 N 110 W does this, as well as meeting OPCOORD standards. No other article on a large country does this. Call the number of links excessive, but this demonstrates a consensus across country articles that we should not use a country's center coordinates. Why should Canada break a site-wide consensus? The reason is simple. Sources are not needed for coordinates. I-82-I. | TALK 08:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Per List of extreme points of Canada, Canada is over 40 degrees north to south and nearly 90 degrees east to west. Even giving single-degree precision is far too precise. No citation is needed because anyone can click the link and verify that the point is in fact in Canada. (This may not be true across the board, but in this case it clearly is.)

I would use 60N 100W rather than 60N 110W as the coordinate, though, because that's a touch more central. Kahastok talk 12:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Opinion now trumps reliable sources. The atlas of Canada and the newspaper opinion both offer nearly identical centres. I won't go against consensus but you're all idiots, and for Kahastok to suggest a location that is further south and west than the sourced geographic centre of Canada is clearly ignorant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Switching to ad hominem attacks Walter? That says something about you and your argument. Kahastok, well said. A source is not needed here, and single-digit precision is too much. I am perfectly fine with 60 N 100 W, but 60 N 110 W is my personal preference (since it also lands on a tripoint, and 60 N 100 W lands on a lake). I-82-I | TALK 18:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Not an ad hominem attack, it is a clear line of reasoning. Now if I were to say you're ugly so you clearly don't know anything, that would be an ad hominem. In short, it's a sad day on Wikipedia when reliable sources are ignored for opinion. And I do not care what you're fine with, it's not sourced, but it's not wrong. Truthiness wins again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
How is "but you're all idiots" a "clear line of reasoning"? (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Too clear for you. Stop wikihounding me Ottawa. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


There is no mention of the abbreviation CDN or of what it means. If the claim in international vehicle registration code is true that it means Canada Dominion, then it's an even bigger problem that this former country name isn't even mentioned. The abbreviations CAN and CA aren't mentioned either. --Espoo (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Canadian dollar - infobox says ...(Currency Canadian dollar ($) (CAD))-. The "Title" of the country is mentioned in the first section.-Moxy 🍁 11:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Text revisions requiredEdit

This page contains more than one instance/variation of "Canada's Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples", which need to be updated to "Indigenous peoples in Canada" as Indigenous peoples living in what became Canada aren't possessions of the country, but instead members of sovereign nations and communities. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Canada's indigenous people owe allegiance to Canada, even when they are outside Canada. Meanwhile, there are indigenous people from other countries such as the U.S. in Canada, who are not Canada's indigenous people. Similarly there is a difference between referring to citizens of Canada and people in Canada. TFD (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces:I don't understand if you're arguing against the revision request or agreeing with it as your comment doesn't address the issue at hand, namely that Indigenous peoples are not possessions of Canada. There are instances in this specifically about Indigenous peoples in Canada - what does that have to do with Indigenous peoples in other countries? This sentence, for example, would still convey the same message by flipping "Canada's indigenous peoples" to "Indigenous peoples in Canada" - note the Wikipedia page name isn't Canada's Indigenous peoples - and would improve the accuracy of the sentence: "As a consequence of European colonization, the population of Canada's Indigenous peoples declined by forty to eighty percent, and several First Nations, such as the Beothuk, disappeared." --Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Aboriginal only in article as a term one time to explain the term....all other usage of Aboriginal are in context of proper names used by the government. Cant change Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples because of a POV on the term... as for "indigenous peoples in Canada" vs "Canada's indigenous peoples" we have to be careful as there are not just Canadian indigenous peoples here.--Moxy 🍁 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You should have clarified the context in which the phrase was used. Clearly the reference is to indigenous people in Canada, not Canada's indigenous population. I thought you were talking about indigenous people who were British subjects or Canadian citizens, when the correct term would be Canada's indigenous people. When we talk about Canada's citizens, including indigenous citizens, we do not mean that Canada owns them but that they owe permanent allegiance to Canada wherever they are.
Moxy, I appreciate what you say. However much of the loss of population would have occurred before the aboriginal people became absorbed within Canada as subjects and later citizens. Also a very small part of the population loss was due to emigration to the United States.
TFD (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
No clue what your saying " loss of population??? not change the term all over the place as has been happening.--Moxy 🍁 17:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
When a population declines, that is a "loss of population." TFD (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
perfect all understand your point now.--Moxy 🍁 20:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not proposing a unilateral update to every instance of Aboriginal, Indian or variants of Indigenous peoples. My original comment was specifically about turns of phrase that imply possession. Obviously proper and legal names like the Indian Act or the Canadian Indian residential school system, on this page, or any other should remain as they are.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Here are a list of resources that advise against the use of possessive language when referring to Indigenous peoples in Canada.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The statement, "before the aboriginal people became absorbed within Canada as subjects and later citizens", is pure colonialization and a lie. They never fully accepted subjugation to become subjects and citizenship was forced on them and many reject it. The first peoples in Canada have been recognized as distinct nations and more are still fighting to have that recognized. They recognize themselves as citizens of those first nations who happen to be living in a land whose people have temporarily supplanted them.
With that said, I agree with the and fully accept the proposition to changing all references to "Indigenous peoples in Canada". Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It is a common error to use possessives to describe Indigenous Peoples, as in “Canada’s Indigenous Peoples,” or “our Aboriginal Peoples,” or “the First Peoples of Canada.” These possessives imply that Indigenous Peoples are “owned” by Euro-colonial states. Indigenous Peoples assert sovereignty and many do not identify as Canadian. To describe Indigenous Peoples as located in Canada, appropriate wordings include “Indigenous Peoples in Canada” or “Indigenous Peoples in what is now Canada.”[1]
  • "Avoid using possessive phrases like “Canada’s Indigenous Peoples” or “our Indigenous Peoples” as that has connotations of ownership."[2]
  • "Avoid “Indigenous Canadian” and “Canada’s Indigenous people,” which may imply possession or colonialism. Prefer: Indigenous people in Canada."[3]
  • "Be aware of semantics regarding paternal language. “Indigenous people of Canada” is not the same as “Indigenous people in Canada.” Do not use “Canada’s Indigenous people” as the possessive suggests a hierarchal relationship; or “Indigenous Canadian” as many Indigenous people do not identify with a Canadian national identity."[4]
  • "Avoid possessives before groups (e.g., Canada’s Indigenous Peoples)."[5]
  • "Writing about Indigenous Peoples" (PDF). Canadian Press. Retrieved 30 June 2020.</ref>
  • "Avoid describing Indigenous people as “belonging” to Canada. Use less possessive terms instead."[6]
I see this makes sense....Worked for Indian and Northern affairs for years and never heard of this problem...nor have I ever heard of it in a possession POV term. I guess we could do some Wikipedia:Advocacy work if anyone anywhere thinks this way. We have always used the term(s) used by the journal of Canadian studies i.e --Moxy 🍁 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy:The distinction is fairly common in circles focused on Indigenous issues and changes in language over time have been acknowledged in the Government of Canada's Style Guide, even as certain acts/pieces of legislation or web resources continue to use outdated phrasing. The folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America may also be a good group to consult with. That said, I'm going to leave my case making here and leave it up to other editors to determine the best course of action. Thank you for your time. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Must be an age thing as Indigenous Canadians to me has zero ownership attached to it. I am reading Krushil Watene; Eric Palmer (2020). Reconciliation, Transitional and Indigenous Justice. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-00-006127-7. and can see much needs fixing as its still the norm.--Moxy 🍁 20:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any point in discussing hypotheticals and need specific examples. It's clear that in the example provided, the use of the term "Canada's indigenous peoples" was wrong, and should be changed. Are there any other examples where you object to the usage? TFD (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Think all we have is a few as seen here.--Moxy 🍁 16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The first example says, "This was the first election in which all of Canada's Indigenous Peoples had the right to vote...." But the franchise was not extended to indigenous people from other countries who were in Canada unless they were Canadian citizens or British subjects. TFD (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Which doesn't in any way mean it can't be phrased differently. Furthermore the Indigenous peoples in Canada clearly articulates that the focus is people who live in or were born in Canada, not Indigenous peoples who might be from else where. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
One of us has missed the point again. If you are speaking of Canada as a geographic region, then I'm making too much of this. If you are speaking of Canada as a political entity, then you're simply wrong. While first nations are born within our borders, they do not identify as "Canadian citizens", so making the claim that they are "in Canada" is misleading and the phrasing should not be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any source that they do not identify as Canadian citizens? Are there any legal cases since citizenship was extended to them where this has been argued? TFD (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Many conversations with the fist peoples; many news reports about them, and many legal cases about it. And again, they were not asked if wanted citizenship, European settlers decided to draw lines through the land that no one can own, and said "if you're on this side you're an X and if you're on that side, you're Y." They had no say in the lines or who the X or Y were. Stop applying colonial rules to something that they claim has none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but do you have any sources or legal cases that corroborate your conclusions? TFD (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't. You're living under a rock if you have not read bout or heard these things though. This is a non-starting issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the spirit of the discussion is all in the right place, and I think TFD makes a good point in that as an encyclopedia this is a reference work, which is particularly important given our current "post fact, post truth" environment we are increasingly living in. As for the issue of not self "identifying" as Canadian, while perhaps valid from a policy/political point of view, is not in law and is similar to a Quebec separatist not self identifying as Canadian, but that doesn't change their citizenship status as a matter of international and Canadian law (and in practical reality). While we can draw links to territorial and sovereignty disputes, it would be wrong to state that that a group is not Canadian simply because they don't self identify as such. trackratte (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It's entirely different from the milieu in Quebec. Many first nations freely travel between Canada and the US and do not carry a Canadian or American passport when they do, particularly at land crossings [1] [2] and [3]. Take some time to read the AFN's position on citizenship. In short, they are First Nations in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The AFN paper is about First Nations citizenship. Their complaint is that it is controlled by the Canadian government, not by First Nations. It acknowledges, "All people born in Canada inherit Canadian citizenship." There is nothing inconsistent with having both citizenships.

Indians are allowed to freely travel to the U.S. as a result of Jay's Treaty, which allowed all British subjects to freely enter the U.S. (Not all aboriginal people in Canada were British subjects at the time.) The right of British subjects to enter the U.S. has since been revoked, but it remains for Indians. However, they must be considered Indian under U.S. law, not Canadian.

Quebec separatism is a good parallel. It is recognized by Canada as a nation, it's citizens were not asked if they wanted to become British subjects, separatists do not want to be Canadian citizens. But they consider themselves Canadian citizens until Quebec secedes.

A complicating factor is that citizenship means several things. It's original meaning was membership in a body politic. This was in contrast to the concept of subject who owed permanent allegiance to the body politic. The term subject has become virtually obsolete, while citizenship now includes both concepts. It is entirely consistent to feel that one is not a part of the citizenship of Canada yet still consider oneself to be a legal citizen.

TFD (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Documentation required to cross the border is irrelevant. US citizens don't need a passport to come into Canada if they have a NEXUS or FAST card and and same for Canadians going to the US. It was only a few years ago that all anyone needed was a driver's license or equivalent. Just because you can travel across the border with a status card doesn't mean you are not a Canadian. trackratte (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. And if the original agreement were still in force in its entirety, all Commonwealth citizens would have a right to enter, work and remain in the U.S., but that would not mean they did not have citizenship in their respective countries. TFD (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Indians live in India.
Quebec separatism is not a good parallel at all. They do not have Quebec citizenship papers and cannot cross land borders without proper documentation. The Nisga'a people have achieved what every other first nation in Canada wants: self-governance. The colonial court systems are not allowing that any more than governments are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't have to talk about Quebec separatism. Quebec has its own Parliament, it's own legal system (civil law), it's own courts, it's own police, it's own identification regime, all of the provincial spheres (health, education, traffic, etc), it's own tax and social benefits regime (unique amongst the provinces), and in many ways is more an independent country than countries within the EU are. And we've just seen provinces close their borders to non-"citizens". So I fail to see what you're on about in this regard. trackratte (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Most other province what Quebec has except for the appeasement in parliament that they are a nation, yet no one has Quebec citizenship. First nations are pushing for all of these things and the Nisga'a have them. They also have the right to enter another country with a document that says they are first nations. Quebec does not have that.
But in short, we are not talking about Quebec's status in Canada so do not mention it again. We are talking about whether we should refer to the first nations as "Canada's Indigenous peoples", Canada's indigenous peoples" or "Indigenous peoples in Canada". The consensus is for the third option. Unless your response is on-topic, I will not reply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of conclusion the underlying logic re:distinctions on citizenship vis a vis Quebec is flawed, and editors are free to bring forward logical comparisons and arguments as they see fit.
This conversation as to the most encyclopaedic way to describe the topic needs to happen at Indigenous peoples in Canada as the parent or main article space for the topic. It would then be natural for other articles to follow suite barring any reason not to specific to the context of those articles. For example, the lead in Indigenous people's in Canada is a mess viewed through the lens of the above discussion. trackratte (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Young, Gregory (2018). Elements of Indigenous style : a guide for writing by and about Indigenous Peoples. Brush Education. p. 91. ISBN 9781550597165.
  2. ^ Joseph, Bob. "Indigenous Peoples terminology guidelines for usage". Retrieved 30 June 2020.
  3. ^ "University Of Guelph Brand Guide | Indigenous Peoples". Retrieved 30 June 2020.
  4. ^ Campbell, Tara (17 January 2020). "A Copy Editor's Education in Indigenous Style". The Tyee. Retrieved 30 June 2020.
  5. ^ "BCcampus Writing Guidelines for Articles and Web Content". BCCampus. Retrieved 30 June 2020.
  6. ^ "Lexicon and Terminology". Reporting in Indigenous Communities. Retrieved 30 June 2020.

Number of provincesEdit

The article reports there are 10 provinces. As far as I know, there are 11 provinces.

Nunavut became the 11th province in 1998.

David Dahl (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Nunavut is a territory. Canada has 10 provinces and three territories. freshacconci (✉) 18:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Nunavut became a territory in 1999. TFD (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Freshacconci: This verges on WP:NOTAFORUM and therefore should not be entertained and removed not to fill up the page's archives with nonsense. Talk pages are for for improving the encyclopedia not for asking basic factual questions that is in the second sentence of the article. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I was assuming good faith and it wasn't a general question, it was something pertaining to information in the article. Whether or not the editor knew to click on the link is immaterial. Cluttering up the archive is hardly a reason to delete something. freshacconci (✉) 20:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, they're suggesting a specific factual edit - they're just wrong about the facts. The only disruptive behaviour here is biting them for it. WilyD 04:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Canada" page.