Talk:Canada
Some talking is on Talk:History of Canada.
I changed this article to follow the guidelines set out at WikiProject Countries. However, I removed a large amount of (good) text that was just too detailed for this page; it should be moved to more appropriate locations (mostly History, and Québec, maybe a separate article on Québecois separatism?). I left the Canadian culture section open, ditto for the holidays table, hoping you Canadians (there's several of you would fix that for me). Please go ahead! Jeronimo
- OH, and could somebody resize the coat of arms to a 125 pixel width? My imaging program's expired and I'm too lazy to get another one...sorry.
re: "In the second half of the 20th century, the French-speaking province of Quebec has sought independence, but two referenda have been defeated, albeit marginally in the last case (50.6% was against independence)"
...shouldn't it say "factions within the province" have sought independence or something like that? - stewacide 19:49 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)
Absolutely it should....Elliot
--- The Statute of Westminster is a pretty obscure piece of British legislation. Though it is taught for all of five seconds in Canadain high schools, nobody really pays it any notice and it is not commemerated by anybody except maybe wistfully by the Monarchist Club. The British North America Act(1867) is usually the date given for the founding of Canada as an independant country. And an arguement could be made for the Constitution Act(1982)which finally removed the right for appeal to the British Privy Council for criminal cases. Even now the Head of State appointed by the Queen of England can disolve Parliament and force an election. The First Nations still have treaties with the British Crown because of treaties entered into before July 1st 1867. When the Canadain government fails in its treaty responsibilities Natives still press their case in Westminster. I don't think that it has a stronger claim than 1867. Two16 06:47 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
So Canada, "despite its immense size ... is mostly harmless"? What's that supposed to mean? I'm not sure if it's a joke, or perhaps was written by someone whose English is deficient who meant something that is unclear from the sentence? Michael Hardy 01:22 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
Whatever the explanation, I don't think it's very meaningful. I've removed it. --Camembert
- It's a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference. Are you people illiterate or something? ;) Not appropriate here, certainly. --Brion 01:29 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
- I knew that really. You must think I'm illiterate or something ;) --Camembert
- Contrary to popular net opinion, not having read THHGTTG is not a sign of illiteracy... -- Tarquin