 |
There is a project to improve articles about Canada – see the Canada Expedition page. |
|
Archived discussions
|
|
Formatting and language conventions
Please show prices in this format: $100 and not CAD 100, 100 dollars or C$100. Please use Canadian spelling (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze, program). Phone numbers should be formatted as +1 YYY-XXX-XXXX. |
Time zone map
[edit]The time zone map currently used, if I'm not mistaken, contains a few issues. First, New Brunswick is labeled as Nova Scotia. In terms of timezones, it overlooks many oddities across Canada. The most noticeable is Labrador, which should be in the Atlantic timezone. It's also a bit more complicated in the Kootenays region. This map also doesn't help to explain the places that don't change in the summer (Yukon and Saskatchewan, parts of Northern Ontario, and North Shore Quebec).
This newer map looks accurate, but it's not really legible until you click through to the full size. I'm also curious whether showing summer and winter zones together on one map is clear for the traveller perspective. Alternatively, OSM and Wikidata seem to have the zones covered, even with the local oddities (e.g. [1]https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6446108), so maybe it's not that hard to make our own static or interactive map.
I suppose the easiest alternative could be to keep the time zone coverage here on Canada simple, and point out the local anomalies at the regional or provincial level. Saskatchewan#Time_zones already does a good job; Northern Ontario could probably use some work.
So my question is, should we swap out the current map for a more complicated but more accurate one? And then, is it worth looking at how we handle time zones in the next level down the hierarchy? Gregsmi11 (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- I remember seeing a similar issue on Australia#Time a few years back. It's been a while since I managed to come up with a solution to it, but I would suggest keeping it simple, and then later explaining the local anomalies in another paragraph. A table could also help. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Here are some choices from Wikimedia Commons:
Ground Zero (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Airlines
[edit]Like User:Ikan Kekek, I question whether the article needs a list of airlines. It feels encyclopedic to me to have a general description of each airline, even after I've deleted the description of each airline's fleet, and the descriptions of airlines that ordinary travellers can't use. Ground Zero (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Apart from major airlines (and some regional ones like Air Nunavut), I don't see the need to include every single minute piece of detail about every Canadian airline. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Now that the list has become even longer, I think it is time to remove it, unless there are any objections in the next day or two. Ground Zero (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I've left a paragraph with the principal airlines, but if that starts turning into an encyclopedic list again, we should probably delete the whole section. Ground Zero (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds sensible to me. Thanks for taking care of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- There have been problems like Canadians stranded in other countries by flight delays. Should we be warning people to avoid Sunwing? Or Westjet which recently screwed up some flights for friends of mine? Others? Pashley (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Such warnings seem like core material for a travel site. I'd say add them right away. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Any airline may have problems with individual flights, but the story seems to indicate something much more serious. Sadly, the story gives no background information. Is the airline getting bankrupt or what is this about? Aren't there standard procedures for handling airlines leaving you stranded? –LPfi (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think adding anecdotal evidence from friends is not a good idea. Every airline screws up some flights. If we have safety or service ratings from a reliable source, we should add that. My Westjet flight last week was fine. Sunwing didn't put my cousins' luggage on their flight, but then British Airways did the same thing to them. Do we want lists of these incidents in country articles? I don't think so. Ground Zero (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Any airline may have problems with individual flights, but the story seems to indicate something much more serious. Sadly, the story gives no background information. Is the airline getting bankrupt or what is this about? Aren't there standard procedures for handling airlines leaving you stranded? –LPfi (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that anecdotes are not enough to justify a warning, but the Sunwings problem appears to go far beyond that. I certainly would not fly with them myself & am inclined to add a warning, but the story is months old & I've no idea of the current situation. Pashley (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- A few months after that mess they were bought by Westjet. Perhaps that has fixed the problem? Pashley (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't fly Sunwing either, but I think we need some sort of report to refer to, not just my cousins' story and your friends' story, or even the CBC artivle from last December. As you note, they may have fixed the problems. I know people who refuse to fly Air Canada because of past problems. Ground Zero (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
History and Politics
[edit]These sections are getting very long. Should we start trimming them? As Wikivoyage:Country article template advises, "The country's history in a nutshell. When in doubt about including a date or event, ask yourself: Is it relevant to the average traveller?". Ground Zero (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Should we revert to Special:PermaLink/4671863, which is more readable and looks less like a Wikipedia article? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Canadian wildfires
[edit]Should we include a warning about the ongoing Canadian wildfires? It looks like they are pretty serious, considering that the smog has now spread into the American Midwest, so this might be a health hazard for people with respiratory issues. Trust me, it's bad. You can actually smell the smoke here. The dog2 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The situation changes daily. The smoke will come to a place for a day or two and then leave. I don't think we can keep up with the changes. This makes me think of the many warnings that we have for incidents that are long since past. The warnings are added, and never removed. Ground Zero (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Having lived through the 2019 East Coast Australian bushfires, have to agree – the smoke isn't the prime concern, it's the bushfire itself. It makes sense to have a general warning (perhaps in a cautionbox) directing users to the relevant provincial government websites, but that's about all we need to do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The wildfires reach Finnish news only occasionally, but my impression is that there have been very large wildfires in California in most years lately, and in Canada at least this year (and 2016). How do they affect a traveller? Is the risk only local, well advertised and easy to avoid once you are there, or is it something you need to take into account when planning your voyage and stay alert about? Should we put up state/province- or countrywide warning boxes or are the fires something to handle in Stay safe (which now has no mention in e.g. Canada or Alberta)? –LPfi (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- It would probably be better in the Stay Safe section, rather than at the top of the article, since the effects are local and transitory. (I'm at a cottage north of Toronto today, and considering going home because once the smoke comes in, I won't want to be outdoors. It's real, but it's not everywhere.) Ground Zero (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The increasing prevalence and ferocity of wildfires and the smoke from them is a product of global warming. Maybe there's a place where we can post statements about all the types of disasters that are going to make travel increasingly difficult. Stay safe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I do think it's warranted to warn people with respiratory issues to reconsider travel to the areas affected by the haze. I'm just not sure where we should stick that warning. For me, it's only an annoyance since I can smell the smoke, but it could be dangerous for people with respiratory diseases like asthma. When I was still living in Singapore, we often had haze caused by Indonesian farmers burning down the forest to clear land for agriculture (though my family back home have told me that it's become less common since Jokowi took office), and there were often warnings from the government for people with respiratory diseases to wear a mask and stay indoors. The dog2 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think there is more value in permanent guide content that helps to plan a trip in the face of potential wildfire (and other increasingly common disasters as @Ikan Kekek mentioned). Things to know before a trip... for example what should I be thinking about when I'm making plans months in advance? The day before I leave? On the road?
- If it's not a timely advisory, there's a question of where to stick it; "Stay Safe" feels like a section I'll focus on once I've booked a trip and feel like worrying about something. Once we inevitably deal with other disasters, some will feel weather related. Do ice storms and heat waves go into climate? What if we had an "Understand>Seasonal Risks" subsection (or something that sounds less ominous) for destination articles that briefly explains the local situation, but mostly links to national or regional "Stay Safe" sections where the details for preparation and safety go into more detail? We don't need to explain the BC wildfire website on every last town in BC, but we can be a bit more specific on what the risks are locally. For example, Vancouver may experience only smoke, but more remote towns will have fire bans, driving restrictions, and issue evacuation orders. Gregsmi11 (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just in case it wasn't fully clear, I was suggesting covering this information in the Stay safe article, rather than individual articles' "Stay safe" sections. The Stay safe article is that permanent guide content you are suggesting we have, though it might bear updating or expanding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I do think it's warranted to warn people with respiratory issues to reconsider travel to the areas affected by the haze. I'm just not sure where we should stick that warning. For me, it's only an annoyance since I can smell the smoke, but it could be dangerous for people with respiratory diseases like asthma. When I was still living in Singapore, we often had haze caused by Indonesian farmers burning down the forest to clear land for agriculture (though my family back home have told me that it's become less common since Jokowi took office), and there were often warnings from the government for people with respiratory diseases to wear a mask and stay indoors. The dog2 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The increasing prevalence and ferocity of wildfires and the smoke from them is a product of global warming. Maybe there's a place where we can post statements about all the types of disasters that are going to make travel increasingly difficult. Stay safe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- If we're worried about the wildfires/their smoke, but don't want to constantly be updating individual cities' warning boxes, couldn't we just put temporary warning boxes on the Canada, United States, and North America pages, since those are general (that way we wouldn't have to edit specific cities/regions but could still put a warning out about them)? We could say something like "Heavy smoke from wildfires in northern Canada periodically comes down to [insert place] and can cause or worsen existing respiratory issues. Travelers who might be sensitive to air particulates should be prepared in case this smoke is in the city/cities you're traveling to". Tuyuhun (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, warning boxes on individual cities cannot be properly maintained. The question is whether wildfires are common enough that we just have to tell where to check before going and while in a possibly affected area (like we do for tornados), or if we want to maintain a more or less updated warning at the country level (a cautionbox telling what areas are affected this year). In countries where widespread wildfires are reasonably rare (as in Sweden), a warningbox may be warranted when they occur. Here in Finland wildfires are a problem, but they are extinguished in hours or days, so general warnings about cigarette buts etc. suffice. LPfi (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Having lived through the 2019 East Coast Australian bushfires, have to agree – the smoke isn't the prime concern, it's the bushfire itself. It makes sense to have a general warning (perhaps in a cautionbox) directing users to the relevant provincial government websites, but that's about all we need to do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
What about an article called Travel in the anthropocene or something like that? And maybe also Evacuation orders and travel for covering how to deal if your town/city/accomodation is evacuated - due to any disaster or even due to a bomb being defused (this is a rather regular occurrence, for example, in Germany, probably even more so in Yugoslavian countries etc.)?
- I wouldn't support the title "Travel in the Anthropocene," because it's rather obscure, but dealing with evacuation is definitely on-topic and important. I'd say, cover that in the Stay safe article, and then if the section gets too big, spin it off as a new article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just thought of a title. What do you think would be a better title? Climate change and travel? Or just Climate change maybe? Pm147-Sm152 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe, but we'd have to decide what to focus on. One topic is how to minimize your carbon footprint, which is covered in Responsible travel. Another is how to deal with dangers like increasing temperatures, which is dealt with in Stay safe or Stay healthy, I'm not sure which. This probably requires more thought, but I need a nap now. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- No panic, it's not an urgent issue. However, we should jointly tackle it. Pm147-Sm152 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe, but we'd have to decide what to focus on. One topic is how to minimize your carbon footprint, which is covered in Responsible travel. Another is how to deal with dangers like increasing temperatures, which is dealt with in Stay safe or Stay healthy, I'm not sure which. This probably requires more thought, but I need a nap now. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Common terminology in the US or racist slur?
[edit]- "Historically they were known as "Eskimos", but this term is considered to be offensive in Canada and should never be used there (though it is still the usual term in Alaska)."
into
- "Historically they were known as "Eskimos", but this term is today considered to be racist slur and should never be used."
I think one should keep a mention of the common terminology aspect in some form. As a visitor to Canada, you should of course avoid the word, but the wording suggests it is thought of as racist slur also elsewhere, which seems not to be true in neighbouring USA. First reading this article and then visiting Alaska could make you quite confused, or make you misinterpret the mindset of people you meet there (and that of local institutions).
–LPfi (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've never been to Alaska, but based on what I read in the news, these days people say "Alaska Natives". I don't really see "Eskimo" being used anymore. The dog2 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- If it isn't (and we can confirm it), then we should say that it has fallen out of use also in the US. If the advice that was here was obsolete, then better it was removed, but "racist slur" is quite strong language. If we don't know for sure, we should use a more cautious wording, perhaps something about "in Canada". I make a try, to be improved when we have done the research. –LPfi (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've done some further editing. Here's the thing. Many people from Singapore may use terms like this because these terms were very common in the storybooks and cartoons my childhood, and people have no idea that they're offensive today. That's they reason we need to warn people not to use them here. Not just "Eskimo", but words referring to other historically marginalized peoples like "Negro", "Red Indian", "Aborigine" and so on. I don't know how Alaska Natives feel about the word "Eskimo", but I would not write that it is acceptable in Alaska until we know for sure that the Alaska Natives themselves don't mind. The dog2 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unless :w:Eskimo has got it all wrong, I think saying never is too strong: according to that article, Eskimo is used when referring to both Inuit and Yupik (calling Yupik Inuit might be as insulting as calling them Eskimos – I don't know), and the word seems to be used in some legal contexts. It is clear that the word should be avoided, but are we sure it should never be used? I don't see how it is necessary to say "never" to discourage Singaporeans from using it. –LPfi (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is the Canada guide. In Canada, it should never be used. Travellers should avoid it. That's all we need to deal with here. If it's different in Alaska, let's deal with that in the Alaska article. Ground Zero (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unless :w:Eskimo has got it all wrong, I think saying never is too strong: according to that article, Eskimo is used when referring to both Inuit and Yupik (calling Yupik Inuit might be as insulting as calling them Eskimos – I don't know), and the word seems to be used in some legal contexts. It is clear that the word should be avoided, but are we sure it should never be used? I don't see how it is necessary to say "never" to discourage Singaporeans from using it. –LPfi (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've done some further editing. Here's the thing. Many people from Singapore may use terms like this because these terms were very common in the storybooks and cartoons my childhood, and people have no idea that they're offensive today. That's they reason we need to warn people not to use them here. Not just "Eskimo", but words referring to other historically marginalized peoples like "Negro", "Red Indian", "Aborigine" and so on. I don't know how Alaska Natives feel about the word "Eskimo", but I would not write that it is acceptable in Alaska until we know for sure that the Alaska Natives themselves don't mind. The dog2 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- If it isn't (and we can confirm it), then we should say that it has fallen out of use also in the US. If the advice that was here was obsolete, then better it was removed, but "racist slur" is quite strong language. If we don't know for sure, we should use a more cautious wording, perhaps something about "in Canada". I make a try, to be improved when we have done the research. –LPfi (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, the term "Eskimo" is only derogatory in Canada and Greenland. It is still seen as acceptable in the United States (even though its usage is diminishing). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Alaska Natives" is a catchall term and not at all limited to Inuit people. See w:Alaska Natives: "Alaska Natives[...]are the Indigenous peoples of Alaska and include Iñupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Eyak, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and a number of Northern Athabaskan cultures." Of those peoples, only the Iñupiat people self-identify as Inuit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that. The question is whether or not the Alaska Natives find "Eskimo" offensive when it is used to refer to them, which is the case with the Inuit people in Canada. It is certainly possible that only some but not all indigenous ethnic groups in Alaska find "Eskimo" offensive, given that they're all different, but I don't know. Things can certainly change with time. When my dad was living in America, using the term "Negro" to refer to black people was the norm, but it's now offensive, and I have to remind him not to use them term whenever he comes to visit me. The dog2 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read w:Eskimo if you like. I really have no idea what Alaskan Iñupiat folks think about the term, but I also don't know how to pronounce "Iñupiat". I have no idea whether mispronouncing that name would be offensive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that. The question is whether or not the Alaska Natives find "Eskimo" offensive when it is used to refer to them, which is the case with the Inuit people in Canada. It is certainly possible that only some but not all indigenous ethnic groups in Alaska find "Eskimo" offensive, given that they're all different, but I don't know. Things can certainly change with time. When my dad was living in America, using the term "Negro" to refer to black people was the norm, but it's now offensive, and I have to remind him not to use them term whenever he comes to visit me. The dog2 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Alaska Natives" is a catchall term and not at all limited to Inuit people. See w:Alaska Natives: "Alaska Natives[...]are the Indigenous peoples of Alaska and include Iñupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Eyak, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and a number of Northern Athabaskan cultures." Of those peoples, only the Iñupiat people self-identify as Inuit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm Canadian & have Inuit relatives & friends. (Northern Quebec & Ottawa area). Some of the older ones still call themselves "Eskimo" & younger ones don't seem offended by the term, though they'll often correct it to Inuit. Not always, though they are almost certain to correct mix-ups between Inuit (plural) and Inuk (singular). Pashley (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Tariffs on US products
[edit]So, Canada seems to have just announced tariffs on US products, which I think we can safely say that prices nationwide will increase soon for the foreseeable future. My preference is just leaving things be as eventually the increased prices will settle for as long as the tariffs stay, but I'm open to hearing any arguments for whether it should be mentioned. --shb (t | c | m) 09:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- The trade war that Trump is waging will increase prices in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, but this is not something we can sufficiently quantify to be worth making a comment. Wikivoyage is not Wikinews. Ground Zero (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sweet, good to have some validation that this isn't worth mentioning. //shb (t | c | m) 09:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
How should visitors be respectful to the locals given the situation above?
[edit]It seems like this article is horrendously out of date since the situation in the above topic started. I've gone through and changed everything that has been impacted to past tense, which mostly concerns the history and the respect section. Is there anyone with on the ground knowledge able to properly update this article to reflect the aformentioned situation regarding how visitors should be mindful and respectful of the locals, as well as the history section?
Wikivoyage was quick in 2020 to update with COVID-19 information, and this story is much, much, much bigger than COVID-19 in Canada, so it makes sense to update this article just as quick. The situation has changed dramatically; and so the advice that used to be in the article is now essentially outright insensitive and disrespectful to how the locals may currently feel about the situation.
Most Canadians feel betrayed, anxious, worried, upset, etc. with what has happened; they feel like the United States can never be forgiven, and that trust has been broken for centuries to come. Many Canadians are worried about an outright takeover of the country, or an invasion, coming from the south. There is an ongoing nationwide boycott of American goods (this also extends to all of Europe and Australia/NZ). Perhaps it is wise for visitors to be mindful of this (same situation in Europe/Aus/NZ)? What else should this article be updated to reflect?
A proper update to the article by someone more knowledgable about the situation would be greatly appreciated. Toran107 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how this is directly relevant to travellers. If we saw any evidence of animosity towards Americans, it would be something that should be mentioned. I have seen none. Canadians understand the differences between Americans and the imbecilic know-nothing windbag they elected, but I don't want to get political here. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Realistically the main impact that I can think of that will affect travellers is that prices will go up (unless the market quickly replaces US products for other alternatives), but I'm not going to crystal ball it and say anything with certainty. Nor do I think that will stop travellers from visiting Canada either. //shb (t | c | m) 02:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- And that your favourite brand of peanut butter may not be available? User:Toran107 spoke about the feeling of betrayal etc., which seems to be easy to extend towards people from there, probably not to the point of animosity, but you may want to be prepared for questions on how you could make that choice for president. Changing tense all over, such as now saying "[the] countries had not been to war since 1814" in past tense, is clearly overkill, and I reverted much of this. However, I hope some Canadian can correct or improve my tweaks.
- (Yes, on this side of the pond, we are also horrified by what this all means for the future, for the world in general through a new Wild-West world order and accelerating climate change, and here in Finland also specifically the risk of an actual invasion from Russia when they have recovered from their current war. We hardly blame all the people, but Trump supporters shouldn't look forward to too much sympathy from most of us.)
- –LPfi (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- As always, we don't need to be hyper-reactive to American news. Not nearly enough time has passed to state or imply that Americans are unsafe or will be harrassed if they visit Canada. We also don't need to have real-time reactions of Canadians. It's not helpful. Unless there is sudden widespread anti-American violence, we should be looking to describe lasting rather than fleeting sentiments. It's very possible that the countries could come together and renegotiate things making all this moot. But if not, we should wait until things settle before we say how things have changed. We shouldn't be taking our personal concerns or feelings about Trump and adding them to articles. Lets see how things go. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- FTR I maintain that Special:PermaLink/5031666 (GZ's edited version) remains the best way of handling this situation. What's now mentioned in the article is true and I don't see the purpose of "waiting" in this instance – it is very much true that Trump's actions have created a "lit of enmity" (as quoted in this article) in Canada and that's not really any contributor's personal concerns or feelings. //shb (t | c | m) 11:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- We have a lot of editors who are eager to talk about Trump. There are definitely personal feelings. We don't have this sort of immediate desire to add to articles with most other people or events. The "Gulf of America" also had discussion. There is nothing wrong with wondering and we SHOULD keep an eye on things, but as I said above, the changes are new and could go away quickly. My point is not that Canadians don't have negative feelings about Americans because of the tarriffs; my point is they don't matter unless it's a sustained and lasting sentiment OR there is real immediate discrimination and harassment of Americans. To add something about Trump right now in the History section seems way overzealous. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps the "respect" section may have been better?
- It does not seem like things can "go away quickly", it seems like it will last quite a while, hence now seemed the right time to update it. This has been going on for about 2 months now, and it has gotten quite serious for the past week already. The boycott going on in Canada started in early February, so a whole month now. Even if this whole thing got walked back in its entirety next week, Canadians have been shaken to the point that it will take several generations to rebuild trust with the Americans. It is not going to go back to "the way things used to be".
Does anyone on the ground in Canada know if it is frowned upon for visitors to buy American goods in Canada? Perhaps visitors should refrain from buying American products that are still (yet to be removed from) on Canadian shelves out of respect for the locals? I'm only aware and heard that US liquor was removed from Canadian shelves, but not of other goods being removed. So if visitors should not buy those American goods out of respect for the locals, then we should let them know. That is probably still worthy of mentioning on Wikivoyage articles.Toran107 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)- If a shopkeeper is trying to sell inventory rather than take a loss by just junking it, who the hell would it respect to make a point not to buy it, and just what consequences are you suggesting could befall someone who does? I don't think that is about either safety or respect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- I was still unsure about this, so thats why I asked. Toran107 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- The governments of most provinces control the importation and retailing of alcohol, so liquor is an easy target. I do not think that any other American products have been removed from shelves; in fact, they are still on the shelves because Canadians are avoiding buying them. Lots of Canadians are cancelling travel plans to the U.S. Will Canadians "frown" at visitors who buy American products? I doubt it, and even if they did, why ever would we bother to mention it? A Canadian frown is no more harmful than anyone else's frown. Ground Zero (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- While Canadians have opposed them for a bit longer, the tariffs didn't actually take effect until March 4, so yes, I think the reaction after just a few days is jumping the gun, and I think it's melodramatic to think that if negotiations took place tomorrow that either eliminated the tariffs or made them more sustainable that Canadians would not move on. That would likely make those who believed the tariffs were meant to force negotiations rather than being an end themselves to feel validated. I think many are still hoping that is what happens, and I think Americans and Canadians would both be relieved. But like I said, if the tariffs stay, and feelings become deepset, we can add it later. At the moment, saying "Canadians don't like US tariffs on their goods" isn't really important to travelers. Unless American travelers are being attacked or harrassed, it's hard to see this as being added for the sake of the traveler and not the editors. What travel advice are we trying to give Americans? Reconsider travel to Canada? Avoid Canada? Canada is unsafe? Those with American ancestry should not enter Canada "for several generations"? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- CW, the generally tariffs have been delayed until April 2, but there may be tariffs on steel and aluminum on April 12, and he's talking about dairy and poultry tariffs, and who knows what else. Frankly, it is too chaotic to keep track of his nonsense. I don't think there is any need for travel advice for Americans. I have not heard of a single case of Canadians even being impolite to American tourists. Ground Zero (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- My main issue with the Wikivoyage article Canada, the revision from 2025, February 16, is that the Wikivoyage article mentions "Canada and the United States are close allies, friendships, and sibling like".
- This statement implied by the original version of the Wikivoyage article pre-dispute, is clearly no longer true after 8 weeks of Washington DC playing whack-a-mole with back and forth rhectoric. By early February, it was already enough to trigger a nationwide boycott across Canada, long before the tariffs went into effect by March and likely April.
- As such, I opened this talk page topic and changed any references in the article from "Canada and the US are close friends" to "Canada and the US used to be close friends" where it seemed appropiate, with a footnote that it has changed since the start of 2025. The talk page topic to check if there was anything else that: I forgot, needed to be changed, or improved on. I was just wondering if there was anything else that travellers should know; whether it be the ongoing nationwide boycott, or anything in the "respect" section that needs updating.
- The second issue here is that CW has tried to revert the Canada article on Wikivoyage to a version that states "Canada and the US are close friends/allies" when it is not true anymore, and is misleading to travellers at best, but probably not very considerate/respectful of how the locals feel currently.
- If CW believes that there should be no mention of the US seeing Canada as an adversary in 2025, in the Wikivoyage article; then we should just completely remove all references to "Canada and the US are close friends/allies" from the article altogether. 8 weeks of back and forth rhectoric has had enough of an impact on the Canadian population that will last for generations to recover from, that it isn't appropiate for the Wikivoyage article to continue claiming that "Canada and the US are close allies" anymore. So reverting the article back to the revision from February 2025 is something I am heavily opposed to, same with reverting back to one of CW's reverts.
- If there is no current travel advice that is warrented, then I don't see a problem with SBH or GZ's revisions to the article, but those edits were reverted by CW, which were reverted back again. Toran107 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, Canada and the U.S. were close friends until Donald Trump decided to disrespect and pick a fight with Canada. I would include that, and I think we should, but I suspect I will get pushback for my position on the factuality of that or its relevance or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- CW, the generally tariffs have been delayed until April 2, but there may be tariffs on steel and aluminum on April 12, and he's talking about dairy and poultry tariffs, and who knows what else. Frankly, it is too chaotic to keep track of his nonsense. I don't think there is any need for travel advice for Americans. I have not heard of a single case of Canadians even being impolite to American tourists. Ground Zero (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- While Canadians have opposed them for a bit longer, the tariffs didn't actually take effect until March 4, so yes, I think the reaction after just a few days is jumping the gun, and I think it's melodramatic to think that if negotiations took place tomorrow that either eliminated the tariffs or made them more sustainable that Canadians would not move on. That would likely make those who believed the tariffs were meant to force negotiations rather than being an end themselves to feel validated. I think many are still hoping that is what happens, and I think Americans and Canadians would both be relieved. But like I said, if the tariffs stay, and feelings become deepset, we can add it later. At the moment, saying "Canadians don't like US tariffs on their goods" isn't really important to travelers. Unless American travelers are being attacked or harrassed, it's hard to see this as being added for the sake of the traveler and not the editors. What travel advice are we trying to give Americans? Reconsider travel to Canada? Avoid Canada? Canada is unsafe? Those with American ancestry should not enter Canada "for several generations"? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- The governments of most provinces control the importation and retailing of alcohol, so liquor is an easy target. I do not think that any other American products have been removed from shelves; in fact, they are still on the shelves because Canadians are avoiding buying them. Lots of Canadians are cancelling travel plans to the U.S. Will Canadians "frown" at visitors who buy American products? I doubt it, and even if they did, why ever would we bother to mention it? A Canadian frown is no more harmful than anyone else's frown. Ground Zero (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- I was still unsure about this, so thats why I asked. Toran107 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- If a shopkeeper is trying to sell inventory rather than take a loss by just junking it, who the hell would it respect to make a point not to buy it, and just what consequences are you suggesting could befall someone who does? I don't think that is about either safety or respect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- We have a lot of editors who are eager to talk about Trump. There are definitely personal feelings. We don't have this sort of immediate desire to add to articles with most other people or events. The "Gulf of America" also had discussion. There is nothing wrong with wondering and we SHOULD keep an eye on things, but as I said above, the changes are new and could go away quickly. My point is not that Canadians don't have negative feelings about Americans because of the tarriffs; my point is they don't matter unless it's a sustained and lasting sentiment OR there is real immediate discrimination and harassment of Americans. To add something about Trump right now in the History section seems way overzealous. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- FTR I maintain that Special:PermaLink/5031666 (GZ's edited version) remains the best way of handling this situation. What's now mentioned in the article is true and I don't see the purpose of "waiting" in this instance – it is very much true that Trump's actions have created a "lit of enmity" (as quoted in this article) in Canada and that's not really any contributor's personal concerns or feelings. //shb (t | c | m) 11:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- As always, we don't need to be hyper-reactive to American news. Not nearly enough time has passed to state or imply that Americans are unsafe or will be harrassed if they visit Canada. We also don't need to have real-time reactions of Canadians. It's not helpful. Unless there is sudden widespread anti-American violence, we should be looking to describe lasting rather than fleeting sentiments. It's very possible that the countries could come together and renegotiate things making all this moot. But if not, we should wait until things settle before we say how things have changed. We shouldn't be taking our personal concerns or feelings about Trump and adding them to articles. Lets see how things go. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Realistically the main impact that I can think of that will affect travellers is that prices will go up (unless the market quickly replaces US products for other alternatives), but I'm not going to crystal ball it and say anything with certainty. Nor do I think that will stop travellers from visiting Canada either. //shb (t | c | m) 02:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- I completely agree with GroundZero's comment above. This is generally not relevant to travel. At most we might mention that wearing a MAGA hat or singing the First Felon's praises is likely to offend many Canadians, but is that Captain Obvious? Pashley (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hard to say – though realistically I'm not sure how many MAGA folks will read Wikivoyage in the first place. //shb (t | c | m) 20:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Some supporters of Trump do read and edit this site. My question would be how many of them would visit a country their chosen leader has disparaged. But we can't say Canada and the U.S. are brothers and leave it at that. There should be a very brief mention of the current tension. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that we shouldn't say they're brothers and I don't think a brief mention of current tensions is "hyper-reactive" or "overzealous". //shb (t | c | m) 09:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I was not the one that reverted the original post nor was I involved in the original discussion that determined this was not worth adding to the article, so please stop calling them "CW's reverts" as if I'm the only one who questioned adding this information. I agree with Pashley that it seems Captain Obvious not to go to Canada and praise Trump and/or the tariffs. "Supporters of Trump" have been to every country "detractors of Trump" have visited, and the idea that they won't go to Canada (or China or Mexico or Russia or any other country Trump has spoken negatively about) is silly. They're just people. We shouldn't assume they don't travel or seek travel information and hopefully we aren't aiming to be a source that people "we" don't like wouldn't want to read. If someone really wants to add this information, please write a proposal HERE and state what section you want it placed in (History? Respect? etc) so that we don't talk in circles or get off topic. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- erm, I didn't claim they were "CW's reverts"? Will get to the rest later. //shb (t | c | m) 11:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- The OP called them that. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't gone to Canada since Trump assumed his second term, but I really don't think the average American tourist will run into any issues in Canada. We could briefly mention that Trump's rhetoric has caused some animosity, but realistically speaking, an American tourist who is just doing the regular touristy stuff is unlikely to be confronted by random Canadians on the street. And I don't think it's inaccurate to call the relationship sibling-like. Siblings can have quarrels too. As an analogy, Mahathir was very antagonistic towards Singapore during his years as prime minister of Malaysia, but that didn't stop Singaporeans from going to Malaysia as tourists and vice versa, and the cultural ties did not go away just because of that. The dog2 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- So many Canadians, me included, have family in or from the U.S. "Sibling" isn't wrong, even if the governments are at loggerheads. I don't think that has changed in the last month and a half. Ground Zero (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would put a brief mention in "History," yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- So many Canadians, me included, have family in or from the U.S. "Sibling" isn't wrong, even if the governments are at loggerheads. I don't think that has changed in the last month and a half. Ground Zero (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't gone to Canada since Trump assumed his second term, but I really don't think the average American tourist will run into any issues in Canada. We could briefly mention that Trump's rhetoric has caused some animosity, but realistically speaking, an American tourist who is just doing the regular touristy stuff is unlikely to be confronted by random Canadians on the street. And I don't think it's inaccurate to call the relationship sibling-like. Siblings can have quarrels too. As an analogy, Mahathir was very antagonistic towards Singapore during his years as prime minister of Malaysia, but that didn't stop Singaporeans from going to Malaysia as tourists and vice versa, and the cultural ties did not go away just because of that. The dog2 (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- The OP called them that. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- erm, I didn't claim they were "CW's reverts"? Will get to the rest later. //shb (t | c | m) 11:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I was not the one that reverted the original post nor was I involved in the original discussion that determined this was not worth adding to the article, so please stop calling them "CW's reverts" as if I'm the only one who questioned adding this information. I agree with Pashley that it seems Captain Obvious not to go to Canada and praise Trump and/or the tariffs. "Supporters of Trump" have been to every country "detractors of Trump" have visited, and the idea that they won't go to Canada (or China or Mexico or Russia or any other country Trump has spoken negatively about) is silly. They're just people. We shouldn't assume they don't travel or seek travel information and hopefully we aren't aiming to be a source that people "we" don't like wouldn't want to read. If someone really wants to add this information, please write a proposal HERE and state what section you want it placed in (History? Respect? etc) so that we don't talk in circles or get off topic. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that we shouldn't say they're brothers and I don't think a brief mention of current tensions is "hyper-reactive" or "overzealous". //shb (t | c | m) 09:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Some supporters of Trump do read and edit this site. My question would be how many of them would visit a country their chosen leader has disparaged. But we can't say Canada and the U.S. are brothers and leave it at that. There should be a very brief mention of the current tension. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hard to say – though realistically I'm not sure how many MAGA folks will read Wikivoyage in the first place. //shb (t | c | m) 20:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
In that case, I think we should just restore the paragraph to the original version about the relationship being sibling-like, and about both sides having genuine affection for each other. Regardless of Trump's rhetoric, I don't think the affection between the American and Canadian people will go away. The dog2 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I do think that this will affect our relationship. It hasn't yet, but if Americans don't tell Trump to back off it will change the relationship. This is an existential threat to Canada. Ground Zero (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sibling-like seems accurate, and we can deal with the "if"s if they become a clearer and lasting reality. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)