Talk:Canada

Speaking of the coat of arms

We should use the user-made rendition, but with a note explaining the crown copyright of the official rendition.

I had this idea after seeing the Uruguay article. There, the flag on the infobox has a note explaining there are three flags.

What I meant is that the user made rendition would be displayed, but with a note explaining the situation. Like this:

Coat of arms

And the text would explain: The official rendition used by the Canadian government is crown copyrighted. Therefore its use is restricted to the specific page about the coat of arms of Canada.

We cannot mislead people into thinking Canada has no coat of arms. Turkey has no coat of arms displayed because Turkey has no official coat of arms. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This issue will not be resolved by philosophical arguments here. Neither is it solved by offering a "reasonable facsimile". In order to use a copyright image we need permission from the copyright owner. In this case that is the Canadian government. Until we have that, no amount of sophistry is going to change the situation. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a non-free content policy, take a look at it. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

It is conventional to provide a link when you request someone look at off-article wikipedia content. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content; Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

To quote the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]] : "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder". Mediatech492 (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

In the Qatar case, the coat of arms is copyrighted, and the copyrighted version only appears in 2 articles: the article "Qatar" (in the info box), and the specific page "Coat of arms of Qatar". Elsewhere, a free version is used.

This is also the approach with copyrighted flags.

The non-use of the coat of arms of Canada here misleads people into thinking the country doesn't have one. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Mediatech492, I think you've misunderstood the quote I'm afraid. That's just defining non-free work. That quotation doesn't mean that permission must be sought for Wikipedia - it means that the work must have been displayed *outside* Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright holder. So for example, displayed on a building or a published document. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

What I meant is that the approach I described is the approach of English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia only follows US copyright law. Non-free content cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Candidyeoman55, I would appreciate it if you would give this a rest. I think most of us are tired of this discussion. Try another RfC in six months to a year. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I recommend removing the infobox, unlike Politics of Israel, Politics of New Zealand, etc. Absolutiva 04:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Why? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not needed for fewer politics-related articles. But well-known examples like Politics of Australia does not have an infobox without given consensus. Absolutiva 05:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Never remove the country infobox in articles about countries. It will be reverted. It has data unrelated to the coat of arms.

The fact that other countries do it differently is irrelevant. We could just as easily argue that those countries should have infoboxes for their politics articles because Canada does. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

And it would be better to have this discussion on the Talk page for the article: Talk:Politics of Canada. Why raise it here? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Because its off-topic article, my mistake. Absolutiva 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If it was for me, we would use the official coat of arms twice: At the article Canada (this one), and the article Coat of arms of Canada. Elsewhere, the free version would be used. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It would be consistent with how Wikipedia treats copyrighted flags and copyrighted coats of arms or emblems. Cases like Calgary, Edmonton, Seattle, Fort Worth, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and others that didn't come to mind here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we know what your position is. It has not gained traction here, and the consensus does not accept your position. One of the principles of consensus is that editors should accept that their position has not gained consensus, not keep raising the issue. As MediaKyle said, please give it a rest. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, I get that having an unofficial rendering is a bit misleading but I think having none is even more misleading and a note would clear up some confusion. I also happen to be the person who added that note to the Uruguay article a few months back so seeing it mentioned here is kinda cool. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 17:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

In most other versions of the Canada article (including French, Italian, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Greek, and others), the Coat of Arms is displayed alongside the national flag in the infobox. The English version seems to be the exception. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

(edited) The use of the coat of arms is -not necessary- to understand the country of Canada. Canada is much more than this symbol. It can make a difference in government or political articles. So let's finally let this rest. Alaney2k (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd love a moritorium on discussing this topic unless something new can be added. It's happened on other pages such as Ireland, Republic of Ireland and others. The last couple of years the coat of arms has just dominated the talk pages and conclusions seems to have been reached to exclude it. We need to either completely drop it, or have a final RFC that follows process that includes a discussion moritorium after the results one way or another. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I also support a moratorium on further discussions about the coat of arms for now. I think we should have another RfC in about a year, and hopefully next time it won't get so out of hand and can actually be closed. MediaKyle (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I kinda expected someone would've proposed a moratorium someday. This doesn't seem to be changing much. Probably a good idea. kxeon  talk 21:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I will intervene only to clarify the legal position, because several comments continue to treat different legal regimes as though they were the same.

It is correct that if we are dealing with a copyrighted image, permission from the copyright holder is required unless a non-free content exception applies. The official government-rendered artwork of the Arms of Canada is protected by Crown copyright under section 12 of the Copyright Act. That specific artistic rendering cannot be freely reused without authorization. No one is disputing that point.

However, it does not follow that every depiction of the Arms of Canada is copyrighted. Copyright protects a particular artistic expression, not the underlying heraldic composition. The blazon, which is the formal heraldic description, is not copyrightable subject matter. An independently created rendering based strictly on the blazon is a new artistic work. Its copyright belongs to its creator, provided it is not copied from the official government artwork.

That is not a loophole or a philosophical argument. It is standard copyright doctrine. Copyright protects expression, not ideas, facts, or descriptive systems such as heraldic blazonry.

There is also repeated reliance on the Government of Canada’s language about “official symbols” being protected. That language refers primarily to protection under section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act, which grants the Arms of Canada the status of a prohibited mark. Prohibited mark protection is a trademark-type regime. It prevents commercial adoption and misleading association. It does not create a general prohibition on depiction comparable to copyright.

If prohibited mark status alone prevented depiction, then the Canadian flag would also have to be removed, since it is likewise protected under section 9(1). Yet it is displayed across Wikimedia projects. The reason is simple. Prohibited mark protection is not copyright.

The non-free content criteria only become relevant if the proposal is to use the official Crown-copyrighted rendering. If the proposal is instead to use an independently created rendering released under a free license, then the non-free content policy is not engaged at all. In that case, the image would not be non-free content.

The legal structure is therefore straightforward. The official government artwork is Crown copyrighted. The Arms of Canada are also protected as a prohibited mark under trademark law. An independent rendering created from the blazon is legally distinct from the government artwork and is not automatically subject to Crown copyright.

Whether the coat of arms belongs in the infobox is ultimately a matter of editorial consensus. If the current consensus is to exclude it, that is a community decision. However, it should not be presented as legally compelled by copyright law unless we are speaking specifically about the official government rendering. The broader claim that any depiction requires government permission is not an accurate statement of Canadian copyright law. AtlanteanAstorian (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Formal name

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.

---

The formal name of Canada is the Dominion of Canada, even though it's seldom used, I don't care. "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is seldom used, but, you still add it. There is no document saying the name doesn't exist anymore. "Canada" and "Sweden" are common names. I don't know why they never put Canadian titles. ~2026-53902-3 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The formal name of Canada is Canada. It has not been called “dominion of Canada” in any formal sense for over 70 years The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe it should be called the Dominion of Canada, but I believe "seldom used" means something different in this case. Sure, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not used very often, but in formal circumstances it is used. The same argument applies to the Republic of Ireland. But as someone who has lived in Canada for 11 years, I have never heard the "Dominion of Canada" used. In even the most formal circumstances it is still referred to as Canada. I am not an experienced Wikipedian, so I am not familiar with the guidelines, but I would like to make this simple clarification. EFOSERVETY (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Much like the coat of arms, this topic has been litigated and re-litigated, and there is a long-standing consensus not to include "Dominion of Canada". This really should be added to the "frequently asked questions" box. I don't think there's anything more that can be said about this topic that hasn't already been said. MediaKyle (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

If you look at your passport cover, you will see that it says ”Canada” without any prefix. The same is in the constitution since its versions in 1982. “Dominion of” is the old name of Canada (and many other former countries part of the commonwealth), it is no longer used The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Canada gradually stopped using the term "Dominion" in official contexts during the 20th century. Under the government of Louis St. Laurent in the early 1950s, federal authorities increasingly replaced "Dominion" with "Canada" or "federal" in statutes, publications such as the Canada Gazette and government department names. This was part of the broader shift reflecting Canada’s growing autonomy following the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The patriation of the Constitution through the Constitution Act of 1982 marked the final constitutional step in affirming Canada’s full sovereignty. In the same year, "Dominion Day" (on July 1) was officially renamed Canada Day through an amendment to the Holidays Act, which effectively removed the last symbolic use of the term in everyday life.

Therefore, the official name of the country has been Canada for decades. The term "Dominion" is now obsolete. Former dominions such as Canada are fully sovereign states, all of which are either today constitutional monarchies or republics, and some, like Canada or Australia, remain part of the Commonwealth of Nations, with 15 as independent realms (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand etc.) and 41 as independent republics (India, South Africa, Singapore, Cyprus, Malta, Jamaica etc). ~2026-24151-74 (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Well said. That's 100% right. The official name of the country is Canada. Just as India's official name is the Republic of India, Australia's is the Commonwealth of Australia and South Africa's is the Republic of South Africa, Canada's is Canada. Referring to it today as the "Dominion of Canada" would be like calling India the "Dominion of India" (or "Union of India" as it was known before 1950) or calling South Africa the "Union of South Africa" (as it was called before 1961). People should probably open a book and educate themselves instead of pushing their outdated nostalgia. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be important to several editors, who put Dominion of Canada links on several articles. It's not helpful, as Canada has been Canada since 1867. While it's fair to note Canada's connection to the monarchy and British ties, it does no good to Wikipedia readers who may think that Dominion of Canada is somehow different than today's Canada. Plus, unless we have a primary reliable source, we cannot count on sources like Canadian Encyclopedia's essay on the topic. Yes, we want a secondary source, but if that secondary source does not itself have a citation, it's just an opinion. When the Government of Canada puts it on an announcement and can be cited, then and only then can it be considered official. Alaney2k (talk) 16:05, 3 April 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.

Religious image.

I propose that the religion section should have two images within a {{multiple image}}: the existing one about religious freedom and a more specific one about Christianity, given that it is the majority, historical, and cultural religion of the nation. Especially in Eastern Canada, there is still a significant Christian majority. Lulasaurius (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Don't think that's necessary. The current image is great. MediaKyle (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree with MediaKyle: current image works fine. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I like the current image and want to keep it. I'm just suggesting adding two images to represent two common themes in the country, one for Christianity as the cultural, historical, and majority religion of Canada, and another for multiculturalism/religious freedom. Lulasaurius (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No reason to split them up to provide, what would seem to many, to be religious endorsement in Wikivoice. Unnecessary, and if we're doing the cultural and historical then it would be about the religions before Christianity arrived here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The identity of what is known as Canadian ethnicity and culture, which gave rise to the nation, originated with the arrival of Christians, not with the Indigenous peoples. This is a Western nation, and the first state to be called Canada was French-speaking and Catholic Christian. Lulasaurius (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2026

Change "The country was a founding member the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) in 1989 and joined the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1990." to "The country was a founding member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) in 1989 and joined the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1990." I believe there is an "of" missing in this sentence, that if added will improve grammar. Similarsample5 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Canada in the infobox

I was wondering whether it might be useful to include the Coat of Arms of Canada alongside the national flag in the infobox. Many country articles on Wikipedia already do this (for example: Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, South Africa etc.), while others do not. I'm not advocating for the change, just putting the idea forward for consideration. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. We've been going over this for years and the consensus currently is to exclude the coat of arms, both the official and user-made renditions. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, my apologies. Thank you. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

There has never been such a consensus. We have one user that thinks they own the place, maintain that ownership through fanatical opposition to anything not meeting their personal interpretation of what the "real" coat of arms is even though that's absolute nonsense and it's been pointed out to them more than once that their claim is inconsistent with reality, and a few dedicated lackeys that follow their lead. That's all it ever has been. Fry1989 ^eh? 13:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Commenting here, if anything, to try to shake people up to reality with an outside view: as an experienced editor at pt.wiki but not an usual one at en.wiki, I believe that not having the Canadian arms in the infobox is already nonsense, and the whole debacle behind this issue makes the en.wiki look ridiculous. I read the prior discussions, and I can't see any reason for Sodacan's rendition to trigger legal issues or "misrepresent official symbols", as AtlanteanAstorian perfectly pointed out above. The argument about it not being the "real" CoA has never made any heraldic sense, and the one about infoboxes being at "full capacity" or "bloated" seems like a made-up and lame excuse. And if the matter is a fear of legal issues, just contact the Canadian Government, and if the official response says there's no problem in using the arms, whether the "official" rendition or Sodacan's, put them back. Misleading readers into thinking the country has no arms, without even a note to explain why the CoA isn't there, should be absolutely unacceptable. Solon ^26.125 09:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As someone in favour of adding the arms to the infobox, we just have to accept that there is not a consensus to add them as a substantial number of editors are opposed and have made reasoned arguments, however much we may disagree with them. That's just the way Wikipedia works. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not an attempt to shake anyone. It's simply stating reality. There is a user, they know who they are as does everyone else, and with a small handful of obedient followers, that has shown a sense of entitlement to this article. That user has decided, and expects everyone to follow along, what image may or may not be used. They have determined for themselves that there is only one "true" or "real" version of the coat of arms, and anything less is not going to be used here so long as they have anything to say about it. It has been pointed out more than once that there are actually several versions in use by the Canadian Government itself, invalidating that claim on its face. They don't have an answer for that. Whenever their argument of what is "real" and isn't "real" fails to pass with most participants, they then predictably fall back to a claim of copyright, and push forth the idea that the rendition hosted on Commons is a violation of the Crown Copyright of their preferred image used by the Canadian Government. This despite the fact that copyright of independent artistic works is a principle that has been established both in law and on Wikimedia almost for as long as the entire project has existed, and should not need to be re-litigated over and over and over again here, and that they tried to litigate the copyright status of that image on Commons and failed there too. If that user removed themselves from this debate, there would have been an image in the infobox years ago. And even when a consensus was reached to include an image, they re-opened it within hours to further debate it. That cannot be described as anything less than fanatical. They are the problem, they are the obstacle, as is their behaviour and their unrelenting opposition. That behaviour would not be tolerated anywhere else on the project due to the level of control on this single issue having been exerted over a period of numerous years and would result in a topic ban. The "consensus" that people keep saying there is, is merely a whipped up frenzy by one user who is being given far too much latitude. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest already. Go report Moxy if you think his behavior is so egregious instead of posting a screed here. The coat of arms crew can try again in 2027. MediaKyle (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything you say. Moxy is the singular problem. My position has always been that the "real thing", as in an image used in an official capacity, is always best, but when lacking such, something is better than nothing. Their position is that nothing is better than something, as proven by the fact they will not accept anything other than one single image and that image only. An inability to compromise by one user is the problem; not what is "real", and not copyright. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Question for people. Why is it seemingly so important to include the coat of arms in the infobox? There's a field for it, and other countries (may) have it aren't policy arguments for it. Why is it so important that it's included on this article specifically? Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think many believe or assume that all countries coat of arms is a primary representative symbol of a country and its people (like a beaver). Yes a national symbol, but its primarily a government symbol used to represent the Canadian state, federal institutions, and the Monarchy (as to why its on passports - gov property). But as mentioned before I was surprised that the last RFC was not successful in implementing the fake version (as in add a nice image over accuracy) - as RFC normally attract random fly-by non-content editors (lol)....it will be implemented one day I have no doubt about it. Wonder if a photo of lets say the GG with the arms in the back can befound. Moxy🍁 17:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2026

Add Canadian Coat of Arms to page beside national flag below "CANADA" ~2026-26876-79 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of this page. MediaKyle (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Press mention

For Template:Press:

• https://www.popsci.com/technology/most-popular-wikipedia-entries/

--Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

wow 21 Moxy🍁 23:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2026

In the Infobox's section for Independence from the United Kingdom, change "Statute of Westminster" to "Statute of Westminster" (unitalicized). It isn't italicized anywhere else. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 21:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit: It is capitalized elsewhere, though I don't believe it should be. While MOS:CANLAW says to italicize Canadian acts, these are British Acts as far as I can tell. Shouldn't it not be italicized? Axolitl (talk | contribs) 21:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. I'm not an expert on the subject of Canadian law, but I assume the Statute of Westminster is italicized because it's been incorporated into the Constitution of Canada, even though it was originally an act of the UK Parliament. The same would be true for the British North America Act, 1867 which is also italicized. See List of Canadian constitutional documents. Day Creature (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

"Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally [...]"

This sentence in the lead talks about income per capita but links to a list about GDP per capita. Income is not GDP. Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

History biased

the history section is biased towards what had the name Canada before the country of Canada was created in 1867. So for example there is no history of Newfoundland before it joined Canada. And history before 1867 is the history of the United province of Canada, not really including the Maritimes until they joined Canada. ~2026-31253-16 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

There are different ways to approach history. Covering the specific history of a geopolitical entity is not biased in itself, compared to perhaps a more anachronistically-defined geographical approach. That said, if there are key points missing that are included in general Canadian histories, that would be worth looking at. CMD (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The History section on "Canada" article (in general) is meant to be a few small bullet points with more substantive history @ History of Canada or the history section of the various provinces or territories. It's not meant to be absolutely exhaustive on the main article because there's size constraints on how large the overall article can be. Is there something you feel should be more deeply intrenched into the other article, or is presently more entrenched currently that could/should warrant expansion onto the Canada article's history section? That's how I would suggest tackling this query. CaribDigita (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 14 June 2026

−

The country co-hosted the [[2026 FIFA World Cup]] alongside Mexico and the United States.

+

The country is currently co-hosting the [[2026 FIFA World Cup]] alongside Mexico and the United States.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is currently ongoing.

~2026-34751-87 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done MOS:RELTIME —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah did the crocodiles eat the algebra in the Wikipedia office again today? ~2026-34751-87 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Misinformation being justified

It seems misinformation is justified on Wikipedia for it is fine to make a current event seem like it happened in the past. ~2026-34751-87 (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure we're misleading millions. A tragedy, really. I'll take this to management for you. MediaKyle (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Passive aggression ~2026-34751-87 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2026

Add the national emblem/ coat of arms of Canada next to the flag. Sbokhari93 (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See discussions higher up the page. CMD (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)