Talk:Canada

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2026

Change the article to have the Canadian Coat of Arms on the right side of the Canadian Flag. It would give more information and still look nice. ZachScientia (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of this page. MediaKyle (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Using lesser coat of arms or shield

Canada
Flag Lesser coat of arms

If we can not show File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg because of copyright we could use the lesser coat of arms that is used on letters patents as shown on the right, as it does not have the same copyright restrictions as the greater coat of arms. Using a country's lesser coat of arms in the infobox has precedent: the page Russian Empire used the lesser coat of arms from 2010 until 2025. Because the greater coat of arms is not available, why don't we use the lesser coat of arms instead of showing nothing. Alternatively, we could just use the shield in the coat of arms, which is in the public domain. Many other articles of countries/provinces/cities on Wikipedia use a heraldic shield in the infobox. Cyrobyte (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this would improve the article or serve to educate our readers in any way, it's just a decoration. Thanks for the thought but this isn't going to happen. The coat of arms camp is going to win eventually, we all know that, but we're not there just yet. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think that it would not improve the article and that it is just a decoration? Almost every other Wikipedia article on countries, provinces, cities, etc. show a coat of arms, emblem, seal, or other such symbol, as they are important symbols of the country. Why do you think the article for Canada should omit the lesser coat of arms or shield if the greater coat of arms is not available? Do you think that all other articles on countries should also omit the coat of arms or does the article for Canada have a unique reason to omit it? Also, the Wikipedia community already would support adding File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg to the infobox of this article if copyright allowed for it, just like virtually every other country article on Wikipedia. What do you mean "we're not there just yet"? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This has been litigated and relitigated, you're late to the party. Please see the archive index and do some reading. MediaKyle (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

None of them discussed using the lesser coat of arms. Why do you think that we should not use the lesser coat of arms? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, it's just a decoration. Our article on the coat of arms doesn't even tell you what the "lesser coat of arms" is. I'm also just being realistic -- we can't come to consensus to include the regular coat of arms, so we certainly aren't going to use this one. If you did some more reading you'd find that not everyone agrees with the copyright concerns, and in fact, nearly every other language Wikipedia uses it... We're just special. MediaKyle (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

We didn't come to a consensus to use the "fake" version of the coat of arms because it differed from the official rendition, so it is viewed as incorrect. This version of the lesser coat of arms is not a "fake" alternative version and it is used on letters patents. Why do you view any coat of arms as "just a decoration" on the article for Canada, while virtually every other Wikipedia article on countries uses a coat of arms or other such symbol in the infobox? Do you think every Wikipedia article about a country should omit the coat of arms? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Can we just stop with the endless coat of arms discussions for Canada? Anyway the coat of arms represents the sovereign and the government, not the country. This article is about the country not the government. Something representing the sovereign or governmental power doesn't represent the country. Canterbury Tail talk 22:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

So do you think that every Wikipedia article about a country should omit the coat of arms? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Nice Straw man fallacy. A) coat of arms rules and usage are different in every country and B) we're talking about this article, not other articles. I express no opinion on other articles as this is the Canada article and not the place or relevance.

The fact is most of the discussions on this article talk page for the last several years has been about the coat of arms, to no conclusion. It's time to either get an outside opinion, or drop it. Canterbury Tail talk 01:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Canada does not have an official "lesser coat of arms" in the way countries like Sweden or historically the United Kingdom and Russian Empire did. . Canada has a single, full Coat of Arms of Canada that is copyrighted.Moxy🍁 23:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Residential schools

obviously I'm disputing the change about residential school information. I think best we link all our multiple Canadian articles on the topic.... Including the graves article as well as our genocide article.... Find it very odd there was delinking of our Canadian articles on this topic. Moxy🍁 22:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

You said that my edit had "too much detail", but you want to talk about gravesites but not provide a general one-sentence overview of residential schools? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I would support adding a sentence about possible gravesites after the sentence that I wrote, but you said that what I wrote is already too much detail. Would you support that? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wrote a sentence summarizing residential schools in Canada and how they are considered to be part of cultural genocide of Indigenous people, while removing a sentence under contemporary history about how mass graves may have been discovered at residential schools. I think that residential schools deserve a one-sentence overview, instead of a sentence about mass graves without any context about residential schools more generally. User:Moxy reverted my edit, saying that it is "is simply too much detail: and that "this is already mentioned twice in the article", but what I wrote and what was there are both one sentence and what I wrote only adds 15 words and is a more general overview. Also residential schools are not "already mentioned twice in the article", so I am not sure what that refers to. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry as I was writing this Moxy's comment was posted. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Your saying less overall about the topic as a whole..... You're just giving a quick overview of a time frame and in the process giving our readers less information about modern day controversies and for some odd reason unlinking the Canadian related articles. Land displacement, genocide etc is all in the article spread out as a whole... and in some cases mentioned twice. This FA article is very scrutinized for being accurate and leading to Canadian related articles that Canadians have made to supplement this page and others. Moxy🍁 22:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

You said that my edit "is simply too much detail" and now you are saying that it does not include enough detail. Which one is it? Would you support adding a sentence about gravesites after the sentence I wrote? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

historically it would now be in the wrong section and just be more wordy for the same information. We simply can't present every topic like a lead sentence we need to say much more in sentences in this giant overview article. Why are you unlinking the Canadian articles? Moxy🍁 22:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

So you would support adding a sentence about possible gravesites after the sentence I wrote in a different section? That would include a link to the gravesite article. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

NO ..... Make up a proposal and see what others think make sure you at least link the Canadian articles. Moxy🍁 22:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Why would you not support it? Cyrobyte (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

As outlined above Moxy🍁 22:53, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it has too much detail or because it has too little detail? You are being self-contradictory by arguing that it has both of these problems. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Your say more about residential schools... as in giving them a time frame.. but completely omit the modern-day controversy about the graves (that we explain has been highlighted in recent times). So you're saying more about one thing and completely removing information about something else so ....yes.....you're saying more but giving our readers less information and in the process linking our readers to generic articles over the Canadian ones. In my general view it was simply a bad edit that was done in good faith.Moxy🍁 23:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I asked you if you would "support adding a sentence about possible gravesites after the sentence I wrote in a different section?", which does not have problem about not talking about gravesites. What is your problem with the compromise that I proposed? Cyrobyte (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

As outlined above simply too wordy for the same information. You're compromised proposal is to keep the same sentence in and add another one.... That's not a compromise in any way. Moxy🍁 23:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

It is a compromise because you lamented that my edit did not link to or talk about gravesites, and I am proposing to add a very similar sentence to what was there before that does have the information and the links that you want. Also what do you mean it is the "same information"? What I wrote provides a general summary of residential schools, and what you want to keep is a sentence about gravesites at residential schools without any context about residential schools. Now I am proposing that we add my sentence in addition to the existing information about gravesites. It does not make sense to talk about residential schools in a sentence about mass graves while having no context to what residential schools were. Cyrobyte (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

This is how FA overview articles are written ....we don't explain every term that we link..we let links explain if our readers are interested in said topic. Just as we say "Somalia, resulting in an incident that has been described as "the darkest era in the history of the Canadian military"."..... We don't explain what the Somalia affair is here, nor do we explain the Oka crisis..... Sometimes we may have some qualifiers so people understand the context but there's no need to explain here who funded them, who operated them, how long they existed etc. Moxy🍁 23:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Why should the article not mention residential schools in general, even with one sentence that briefly talks about them and that they are considered to be part of cultural genocide of Indigenous people and, at the same time, exclusively, mention that there are potentially mass graves there and that that highlights the cultural genocide. Residential schools are an important topic to the history of Canada, so I believe that there should be 1-2 sentence that give an overview of them, instead of 1 sentence about mass graves that has no context. This article does not mention the context of the Somalia affair and Oka crisis as they did not occur in Canada, so only the Canadian response to them is relevant, but residential schools are very relevant to Canadian history. Cyrobyte (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Will let others reply at this point. On a side note....perhaps you should click on okra crisis before replying. Moxy🍁 23:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I went to the article and I misread the article and thought you were referring to when it talks about peacekeeping in Somalia.

Anyway, I do not think that there is any point continuing this discussion, given that, among other reasons, you have openly said that you have no respect for me and that I am a liar. I will start an RfC about whether to keep the previous version, use the version that I edited, or to use the sentence I wrote in addition to a sentence similar to the one that is currently in the article about gravesites. Cyrobyte (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful make sure you link the Canadian related articles in your proposal please. Moxy🍁 23:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I would support including both sentences as such:

The Canadian governement also funded Indian residential schools administered by Christian churches in the 19th and 20th centuries, which have been considered to be part of a cultural genocide against Indigenous people due to forced assimilation. In 2021, possible gravesites of Indigenous children were found near former Canadian residential schools, highlighting the cultural genocide against Indigenous peoples.

What do other people think of this?

Also, I do not understand why User:Katzrockso said that this "water[s] down the cultural genocide by attributing the claim", as the claim is not attributed to anyone, and I do not understand why they believe I am "promoting a FRINGE POV". I am not attempting to promote any biased point of view and I don't appreciate that I am being assumed to be acting in bad faith.

Cyrobyte (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

To be up front: I have not read the whole back and forth above. Just commenting on the proposed language directly above.

I agree with Cyrobyte that we need something more than just the mass graves issue—important to mention it but just mentioning that falls into a recency trap.

So with respect to the text above, I like it... links to several related articles and puts the mass graves issue into context, plus give some context to the Canadian government's historical relationship with Indigenous people.

Small tweak in italics:

The Canadian governement also funded Indian residential schools administered by Christian churches in the 19th and 20th centuries, which have been considered to be part of a cultural genocide against Indigenous people due to the institutions' use of forced assimilation. In 2021, possible gravesites of Indigenous children were found near former Canadian residential schools, highlighting the cultural genocide against Indigenous peoples.

More complete/clearer. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The first mention or genocide could drop the cultural part...... as in Canada it's generally considered a genocide all around.... With the residential school specifically being referred to as cultural genocide but overall the term genocide is now being used. And if we go for something like this I'll get real sources.Moxy🍁 23:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Joeyconnick pls review... Moxy🍁 14:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I think we should give Cyrobyte a chance to reply. I've fixed the technical and MOS:EGG issues in your recent edits, Moxy, but I haven't had a chance to review what you added/changed re: residential schools but haven't reviewed the content-related changes as yet. How about we give it a few days so others can weigh in? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

We can move on ....all good. Moxy🍁 15:12, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I am ok with this version. I am happy we were able to come to a compromise. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

References

RfC: Residential schools

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.

---

How should residential schools be mentioned in this article?

• A: the status quo, with one sentence reading "In 2021, possible gravesites of Indigenous children were found near former Canadian residential schools, highlighting the cultural genocide against Indigenous peoples."
• B: this version, with a different sentence reading "The Canadian governement also funded Indian residential schools administered by Christian churches in the 19th and 20th centuries, which have been considered to be part of a cultural genocide against Indigenous people due to forced assimilation." instead of the other sentence.
• C: A version that would incorporate both the new and old sentence, including all links to other articles.

Cyrobyte (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• I support B or C becauase I believe that residential schools are an important enough subject in Canadian history to have 1-2 sentences explaining them, instead of 1 sentence talking about potential gravesites without context about what residential schools were. Cyrobyte (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Obviously I support A status quo as outlined above #Residential schools based on the rationale of WP:DETAIL. On a side note nominator should have read over WP:RFCBEFORE (a few hours?).Moxy🍁 00:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I know that you have openly said that you have no respect for me and that I am a liar, but I did read it over and, in addition, when I told you that I would make an RfC you said that that "sounds wonderful". Cyrobyte (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I was hoping this time you actually read up on the topic....O well let's see what others have to say ...but now you know. Moxy🍁 00:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Nice ad hominem and personal attack Cyrobyte (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I don't appreciate you engaging in ad hominem personal attacks and passive aggression. Cyrobyte (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• I think it is not an either/or situation. Neither are completely right. A or something similar belongs where it is now, but mention it set off the orange shirt phenomenon.. B or something like it belongs in the Indigenous peoples section, explaining the genocide/assimiliation mentions. Alaney2k (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

A or a modified C that doesn't water down the cultural genocide by attributing the claim and promoting a FRINGE POV. Katzrockso (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2026 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2026

Unprotect this page so I can allow to edit. ~2026-49249-56 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting administrator, or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting administrator is not active or has declined the request. Day Creature (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Population estimate

Just a minor correction: the new population estimate in the infobox is for 2026 Q3 (July 1, 2026), not 2026 Q2. By the way, Statistics Canada now uses the specific reference date rather than the quarter designation. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

No it's Q2. Can't have a Q3 estimate as Q3 isn't over yet. If its from July its based on the data for the end of Q2. Canterbury Tail talk 00:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The estimate dates are as of January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. Before the recent estimate, the estimates were reported as Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4, so the April 1 estimate was reported as Q2. See the page as reported last week: https://web.archive.org/web/20260920030743/https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901 ~2026-51681-51 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Therefore, the July 1, 2026 estimate is Q3. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2026

Add the missing information: The coat of arms.

Use this coat of arms image:

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg ~2026-52334-18 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a free image. CMD (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)