Talk:Anti-Canadian sentiment

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Canada Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, 9 September 2021, see discussion. Keep, 3 March 2006, see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Canada may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

If you take a look at the NOT CANADA site, for example, you'll find harsh critism of the racism and xenophobia endured by new (and not so new) immigrants. Those who have moved to Canada to find a better life only to have their dreams shattered and their savings depleted due to not being able to find suitable employent in their fields. The excuse usually being that their qualifications are not recognised or that they don't have "Canadian experience". This is inspite of the fact that the Canadian government requires theses qulaifications as a prerequisite for residency. 213.130.123.28 (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it counts as Anti-Canadianism when basically everyone who moves to a different country with expectations like that gets let down. We'd just have one in most anti-western country article. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, fail to see how this is anti-canadian. TastyCakes (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how can this section not mention the southpark movie and the song "blame canada"? i'm flabbergasted. Tschroeder 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Canadian? hahah, I would bet money that this entry was started as a joke and some victims of their own brain-drain decided to get serious. Canadians are all cute and cuddly and sound funny....everyone should have one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.74.110 (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We're difficult to house train. 142.33.122.235 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the lines that seem to have created controversy here were written by me, as any quick check of the page's history would have told you. So why are you all so mad at Ceasar?. PS I think the Harper quote needs to come back, it shows how Canadians are much more likey than other peoples to question the value of their own home country. Kevlar67 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Statistics Canada, the so-called "brain drain" in Canada is a myth. It is typically used by neo-conservatives looking for yet more reasons to cut social spending. I just had a little look through Google and while I can't find the StatsCan figures, I have found many articles which cite the figures. Does a citation need to be direct, or can it come second-hand? SmashTheState

I advise you to look up "neoconservatives" and compare that to other "brands" of conservatism. Judging from the above, it seems likely that you do not appreciate any difference and simply use the word "neoconservative," where you should, for the sake of clarity, just use "conservative." Perhaps the word's similarity to other such "neo's" as, for example, "neo-Nazi" makes it seem more appropriate, in light of the fact that you likely think of conservatives as a diabolical bunch on the order of a Snidely Whiplash?

Someone please congratulate me on bringing this one back around to the subject of Canada, at least in some fashion, there at the end. I deserve a high five for that one, eh? 24.187.122.14 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP guy is correct, SmashTheState evidently does not understand what the term neo-conservative means, namely the fact that its definition is anchored in a hawkish foreign policy which is totally unrelated to what he's talking about. That and I think it's a little odd that a self proclaimed anarchist would object to smaller government. That said, I believe he is correct in his statement that the brain drain is not thought to be as severe as was once feared. TastyCakes (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Brain Drain is not as bad as once feared, but there were statistics and reports to support the notion in the late 80's and into the '90's. As well, being that we are so close geographically, there are reasons to fear it as the United States is usually the most frequent nation represented in foreign employer recruitment at career fairs and other professional meetings. --blondtraillite (talk)--70.49.130.67 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most common foreign recruiter in Canada are US firms? NO SHIT! You think that supports the idea that fears of a brain drain were rational? 142.112.179.6 (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Brazil-versus-Canada story has been pretty much forgotten in Brazil. I bet most people don't even remember it. It was more a joke than anything else, as most things go in Brazil (for the good or the bad of it).

I was in Brazil in June 2005, and saw ads prominently using Canadian flags. Sure looked to me like nobody there remembers (if they are knew) of any trade spat with Canada.

"She has often proposed extreme solutions to Canadian dissent, such as a military invasion of Canada[2], and has said that Canada should be grateful that the US "allows" it to exist on the same continent."

First she's crazy. Second Canada doesn't exist because the USA allows it to. Thirdly, and finally, unless Canada turned into a third world country where it's Leader wanted to destroy and/or conquer the Earth(DEFINETELY WILL NOT HAPPEN) would there be an invasion.

I agree with the above statement

Crazies get their say too. Their say is anti-canadian, and therfor goes in the article. Though I think her comment on Christians seeing themselves as perfected Jews has been seriously misunderstood. 142.33.122.235 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter, with whom you might disagree but who is obviously not crazy in the clinical sense of the term, is clearly not serious in any comment she has made advocating military action against Canada. She may be joking in poor taste, and apparently her humor is not obvious enough for some people to catch on to--and maybe it's not even really that funny a joke for most people who still do recognize it as humor. But it doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure out that Ann Coulter isn't seriously suggesting that America take military action against our neighbors to the north.

And I second the motion about her comment on Christians as perfected Jews being misunderstood. Many people might not like it to be stated in those terms, but strictly speaking, that is precisely what Christianity is supposed to be--Christ was a Jew, he's supposed to be perfect, and people are supposed to follow his example as best they may, thus perfecting themselves. Some people may want to sugarcoat the differences between religions in the interest of all just getting along, and I understand and agree with this sentiment; on the other hand, if you really believe your religion, then you obviously must believe that it is correct and that doctrines which differ are in some way incorrect. One might not approve of her particular wording but it's rather a more charitable sentiment than one might associate with what we might call religious extremism, which is more along the lines of: "you should be forced to adopt my religion or you should suffer and/or die." Ann Coulter is most clearly NOT advocating any such position, which in any event would be un-Christian. Her position essentially boils down to a statement of some measure of tolerance, while still advocating for her religion as the correct one.24.187.122.14 (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording misleadingly links the phrase Soviet Canuckistan with Pat Buchanan, and I'd go so far as to say it implies he coined it. Clearly this is not the intention of the article, so it needs fixing. --88.109.230.172 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where it says he invented the term? Can you prove to me he didn't? Even if he didn't, the article, by using the term first and then saying he used it, would, if anything, create the impression it existed before; this looks like a case of stretching an article well beyond what it actually says. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Soviet Canuckistan is a phrase used by Pat Buchanan". How does that not imply his ownership of the phrase? I've moved the introduction to the phrase to the previous paragraph to provide some separation. I'm sure you're going to revert it.

(A simple Usenet search shows it being used as far back as 1996) --88.109.230.172 17:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, now "Soviet Canuckistan" is an unreferenced term, and the article doesn't say Buchanan used it. "Used" and "invented" and "Ownership" are very different concepts. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phelphs isn't particularly anti-Canadian any more than he's anti-anything-else. Sure, someone who hates all western countries therefore also hates Canada, but that's a pretty trivial sort of "anti-Canadianism", so I'm not sure it's useful to mention him here. --Delirium 20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is interesting because everyone wants to remove everything from it. He's a notable- not trivial- figure and his brand of anti-Canadianism is fairly distinct, making it an interesting note. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly see how Taliban attacks in their own country, on Canadian soldiers can be viewed as anti-Canadianism. More like anti-colonialism. I think another example should be put in. --Mista-X 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you think Canadians are there to colonize Afghanistan, not exactly an uncontroversial idea. Anyway, terrorist attacks on Americans, outside of the US, are often cited as evidence of anti-Americanism, so I don't see how this is different. Furthermore, I made it clear in that paragraph that the Taliban don't single out Canada in particular, but are just anti-Western in general. If you can think of a better example of that, but which still involves Canadians, that's fine. I'd have no problem with that. Kevlar67 00:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that attacking Canadians soldiers in their own country is a bad example of anti-Canadianism, when their country is under attack/occupation. IF, for example, a Canadian journalist was kidnapped Iraqi resistance style, then one could argue anti-Canadianism (though it would most likely still be anti-western then specifically Canadian). I just don't see how targeting a soldier should be included. War is war and soldiers should expect to be attacked. --Mista-X 01:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say that Canadians are trying to colonize Afghanistan is a gross mischaracterization of the situation. Vranak

In your opinion maybe, but I'm not sure what else you call invading, occupying, terrorizing, killing, plummaging, forcing a certain socio-political system on another country, etc. Anyhow, my point is still that fighting a foreign soldier on your own turf is a bad example of discrimination. Would Soviet Soldiers be anti-German because they were fighting for their land in WW II? No, they were anti-Nazi. They recognized Germany was the enemy but not all the people. Same shit. --Mista-X 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be naive. Vranak

Ditto what Vranak said - that's not colonization. Colonization generally follows the invasion & pacification of a country, and is further characterized by the arrival of civilians who intent to set up permanent residence there. And your arguement re: Soviet forces in combat against German forces in WWII is specious as well; that was a conflict of two organized military forces, not what are, in legal terms, armed civilians (Taliban) who are not authorized or organized by their government (Afghanistan) vs the lawfully established military forces of another nation (Canadian Forces). Jacky Tar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.134.77 (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that most Anti-Canadianism is either extremely trivial and generalized such as applies to all Western Nations, or is an example of over sensitivity. All neighboring nations (and most non-neighboring nations) have certain stereotypes about each other. Canada's tends to be overwhelmingly positive.

I don't think they even deserve an Anti-article. Though, Quebec might. Since to be honest, the only real Anti-Canadian sentiment in this article, stems from...other Canadians. All of which issues are covered in other specific articles. I don't think every nation that Fred Phelps ever bashed (the psychotic Westboro crazy that he is) deserves a wikipage about it.

I also find it rediculous that it notes Canada defiantly embracing self-deprecating humor, when the worst example is stereotypes about Hockey and Soviet Canuckistan. It hardly serves to draw a parallel with say, Jewish self-deprecating humor. Since unlike Canadians, there is a history of virulent mainstream anti-semitic messages. So to compare them (even subtly) is insulting.

Beyond that, Canadians are probably the least self-deprecating people on the planet. They are extremely sensitive.

In any case, any nation whose flag some liberal Americans use to sew on their backpacks while hiking across Europe, can hardly be a martyr worthy of a page devoted to it. Also, that 'few acres of snow' comment was misattributed. It was referring to a specific tiny area, I think, Victoria island or such, but Canada seems to love that quote regardless.

Beyond that, the popular culture examples are if anything, affectionate parodies without an ounce of actual anti-canadianism. Half of them were written by Canadians. Look at any other Anti-whatever article to see the difference. Come on. The examples are from Michael Moore, The Simpsons, South Park and Mystery Science Theatre. I'm sure there is an SNL skit somewhere or a Boys in the Hall skit that they can find to add.

I agree it's not a heavy issue; I was mystified by how upset this article made one person. But it's well-known stuff; that's really the threshold of inclusion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just odd that we have articles devoted to Anti-Americanism, Anti-Islamism, Anti-Semitic...All of whom have had real and devastatingly unhappy consequences, from the mild loss of opportunity to death, sometimes on an mass scale. Yet alone of them, we have Anti-Canadianism, that uses as its main examples, affectionate parodies from cartoons, a rant by a madman which would be better included under Homophobia and an reiteration of the Quebec debate that is already extensively covered in another article. So it just seems that the inclusion of this article has no real merit beyond a sort've perverse pride. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 76.169.233.53 (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

I believe the "few acres of snow" is from Voltaire referring to Acadia (now Nova Scotia). Sepeatist Quebecois who are anti-canadian aren't the only ones in regards to a particular region. Calgarians are known for some of this sentiment but particularly Newfoundlanders as some in that province are openly still for separation. Oh yeah, and if the "I am not Canadian" reference is going to be said for the "I am Canadian" commercial, mentioning "I am a newfoundlander" should also be written. In the parody commercial, the commentator speaks about his grandfather being "pissed off" at confederating. Canking 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is complete nonsense. The article cites Ashton Kuchner in the Movie "Dude Where is My Car?" My brother and I were laughing like crazy at this article - I suppose we preferred to believe that there was an intelligence behind the absurdity. This word has absolutely NO currency except for wikipedia - no one is concerned about it - etc. But the word and this article are worthwhile because they reveal the absurdity of this type thinking and point implicitly to that other phantasy word "anti-americanism". And by the way unsigned above "anti-americanism" is not generally accepted as referring to anything. Canuckistani 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell hates Canadians?

As a rabid Anti-Canadian,I vote this article stays.I'm aware that Canadians like to think they're the most loved people on the planet,but it needs to be known that not everyone holds them in high regard.

No signature, eh? Pendragon39 18:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also hate how they drive. Passive aggression anyone? Surely this should be in the article. 70.112.5.35 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying this article should stay up because your anti-Canadian and you want this article to make Canadians feel bad? Wow. I'm so glad your priorities are so straight. Are you American, by chance? Americans seem to be the only people who say this type of stuff. Not anti-Canadian stuff, im sure other countries dont like us either, but only Americans go onto the internet and bash Canada. This discussion isn't about your personal feelings towards Canada though, it's about if it is a relevant article.

Hey, Canada, I just wanted to say that this American Wikipedia contributor stands on guard for thee! Love to the true North strong and free from the Pennyroyal region of Kentucky. Alan Canon (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Article actually makes us Canucks feel better... Every other article has horrible acts of terrorism etc. on them, what do Canadians get? A few stupid stereotypes? To be honest we could have it worse. Though admittedly we might look worse if the world didn't tend to think "Oh don't blame the poor Beaver. You see it's all that damned EAGLE'S fault..." So we get out of alot of responsibility. And on a related note, someone said that most anti-Canadian sentiment comes from Canada, or that the most serious does. Perhaps. Someone also said that we're 'sensitive'. Tip: We're only sensitive about stupid stereotypes when it's spouted off by someone who probably believes it (Largely Americans, a stereotype on our part likely). Actually we make alot of jokes about our country when we're talking to someone who knows these are [i]jokes[/i], not funny facts. But this article probably should be kept, I think, because being 'Anti' something does not require support of terrorist attacks. I'm Anti-Conservative (It's a word now, I make it so) but I wouldn't shoot Harper in the back of the head. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is most certainly the lamest anti-article ever. Moreover, this should not be categorized under "discrimination" because a lot of anti-Canadian jokes do not have anything to do with discrimination in any way shape or form. Until Canadians are being denied jobs outside Canada (particularly in the U.S.?) due to their specific national origin-- i.e. Canadians can't get jobs that other foreign nationals can in other countries--then categorizing this article or any part of it under "discrimination" represents a misunderstanding of what is meant by the word "discrimination" in this sense.

Some examples which may elucidate:

Everyone makes fun of Bob for being Canadian, but he's still hired at the company, accepted in all meaningful ways, and treated as one of the team. NOT DISCRIMINATION.

Everyone bends over backwards to avoid saying anything against Bob's Canadian background, but they all know there is no way they will hire a Canadian at their company. DISCRIMINATION.

The case of this so called American Anti-Canadianism quite obviously most closely mirrors the former situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.122.14 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is terrible. I want to see an academic write about Canada. Find something written by an academic and quote it. I deleted the initial quote from some military guy and the one from Voltaire cause they're both off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.139.234 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were definately not off-topic and I've restored them. Why don't you help the article by finding something by an academic instead of blanking content? -- œ^™ 02:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone mind if I move this to Anti-Canadian sentiment? We're inventing a term here. Marskell 12:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No we're not [1] but it wouldn't be that drastic a move. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a garbage word that has no currency among those who speak english - who cares what you do with it. My vote would be that this article get erased.Canuckistani 15:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canuckistani (talk • contribs).

How about "Canada bashing"? Pendragon39 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has stood unopposed for 4644 days, I will go ahead and move it, following the example of Anti-Australian sentiment. --Cornellier (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article as 'refimprove' after stumbling across this page in a reference to

"Fred Phelps is strongly anti-Canadian". You bet... why don't we just let it out, Phelps is anti-everything and apart of his extensive family, he has almost no adherents, only admirers of his unintentional humour. So I don't see why this statement, though correct, makes sense in this article. Steinbach (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phelps and his group do seem to be a sad fringe group that don't reflect any significant element of society at large. That said, I think a lot of this article probably falls under that category. TastyCakes (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this classed under the US portal? I'm removing this apparent mistake. TastyCakes (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was no doubt a passive-aggressive strike by a religiously anti-American Canadian. :-p Tomer^talk 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the anti-Americanism article, Luis Araquistáin's comment that "socialism is a social heresy there (United States)" is referenced. Canada is very frequently equated with socialism or communism by Americans -- as well as by conservative or libertarian Canadians -- at every social level. We all know about Soviet Canuckistan, but sometimes it also comes out in the oddest places: such as when a potential juror for the Conrad Black trial was asked what she knew about Canada. Whether or not it was said originally as a joke, the belief is real.

Not saying whether or not the association is accurate, simply pointing out that the association exists and colours attitudes. This is the definition used in the other "anti" articles.

By way of illustrative example: a persistent myth that has been thoroughly and repeatedly disproven is that the 9/11 terrorists entered the United States through Canada. Considering that there is no factual basis, what possible reason is there for this myth to be so persistent?

Conversely, should the knowledge that this myth persists matter to Canadians? or is it simply a matter of thin skin? Me, I would suggest that it matters at least insofar as it influences American foreign policy toward Canada, which in turn is shaped by American voters. If Americans come to believe en masse that the Canadian border is porous to the point of being a potential threat to the United States -- and that Canada is unwilling or unable to alter the situation to American satisfaction (insert whatever motivation you like) -- is that likely to alter future foreign policy?

Extrapolate to another border, the far north. If the Northwest Passage is finally defined as an international strait, as the United States wants, Canada will be unable under international law to close its borders to shipping. If the preconception of porous borders remains, there will be strong American pressure to police the strait by a more reliable authority: the United States itself.

Again, we return to the "anti": this time with an eye to what a belief, even when it is not based in fact, can mean to international policy.

Might it be appropriate to re-order this article based on the reason for the "anti", rather than strictly by nationality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.138 (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised to see it, but the following falls in the category of meaningless mentions of Stephen Harper, of the order of "cutting ribbons on playgrounds and bridges" or "Stephen Harper slept here", tidbits about which occur(red) in various town articles. Does anyone here seriously believe that Harper's motion in the House has solved the distinct-society dispute/resentment, as the wording of the following boasts?? It's a sop, and not really relevant to the subject of anti-Canadian sentiment in Quebec. It's not like this omtion accomplished anything, though it does seem it afforded someone from the PMO an opportunity to make a semi-spam brag on a wikipedia page; serious journalism wouldn't give this the time of day:

Up until November 27, 2006, one such source of rancour was the refusal of an important part of the English Canadian population and political elite to recognize Quebec as a nation, or a "distinct society". However, a motion presented by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognizing the Québécois as "a nation within Canada" was passed on that day.

I'm of the mood to delete it wholesale, unless someone can provide backup material showing it changed sentiment in Quebec. One day I'll find a wikipage claiming that Harper invented the sun, moon, stars and ice cream, I'm sure...Skookum1 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I think it's a little more relevant/notable than playground ribbon cutting, but I agree it doesn't belong in this article. TastyCakes (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose more to the point is that actions by other Prime Ministers to ameliorate Quebec's out-of-joint-nose problem should also be mentioned, if this is; the theme of anti-Canadianism among some Quebeckers is certainly a valid one; but this is a sop and a pretense that Harper actually accomplished something with this motion; from what I know of Quebec politics, he didn't. The playground ribbon cutting reference is meant in the context that prime ministerial visits/announcements for various locations/causes are not encyclopedic material, unless truly notable, and if only one prime minister's such actions are mentioned, it's POV/spam....Harperite doo-dabs of this kind are all over Wikipedia (or are, until I find them). In other words, what about Martin's and Chretien's efforts and actions; surely the Clarity Act is more relevant in terms of riling Quebecois sentiment, and it's odd that, although Meech is mentioned (but not Charlottetown), Brian Mulroney's maybe-earnest efforts in this area go unmentioned, while Harper's trivial grandstanding is served up on a silver plate.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. I'll remove the statement entirely... TastyCakes (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a countervailing page to balance this one out. Many New Zealanders feel an instinctive sense of solidarity and warmth toward Canada, as we also know what it's like to live next to a loud, belligerent and excessively conservative neighbouring nation (ie Australia), even if we're fortunately seperated by several thousand kms of sea from them. What about liberal Americans who admire Canada's social and political system, for that matter? Calibanu (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu[reply]

I guess if you can find reliable published sources they could form the basis for an article on this topic, otherwise it would be

original research. Good idea though, I'm sure Google Books can turn up something. -- œ^™ 06:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

something the realtionship with the netherlands too 68.179.45.154 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This inquiry and quotation doesn't seem anti-Cdn to me - it just reads as critical. Critical is normal, doesn't seem like an example of anti-Canadianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I think this part should be removed. It's a scandal absolutely, but all criticism within Canada isn't "anti-Canadian" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.253.209 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed the section. Certainly one can argue that a country's political system has serious flaws without being "anti" that country. GabrielF (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is, the biggest fans of "Anti-Canadianism" are the Canadians themselves. It validates their existence.

In reality, no one really bothers to think about Canada. To most Americans, it might as well be "North Ohio": a boring place full of boring people. The intelligent and industrious ones will eventually make their way to New York or Los Angeles, the rest will vegetate in a Molson-soaked stupor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.163.132 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trolololololol; but seriously folks.... Celynn (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Canadianism in Brazil? I am Brazilian and I can say that never happened. Canada is well regarded in Brazil and it is a "dream of consumption" for several Brazilians who want to move there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.50.237 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look Canadians:

Don't take this the wrong way, but this article is pure propaganda for Canada as a socialist, tolerant country. The examples of "anti-Canadianism" from the States basically say that Americans hate Canada because it's just too darn socialist and accepting of people's rights. If you want to be realistic and accurate as to why people object to this country, it's worth taking seriously people's criticisms, like the claim that it committed genocide on natives, or that it's gradually becoming a police state. You could also include the fact that, though Canada loves making itself out to be a socialist country, its political tendencies are mostly capitalist welfare statist, which, in some views, is just right wing in itself.

Take Care,

70.72.45.131 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on

• do nothing, it remains (according to this talk page) a "lame" article, a never-complete list of random stuff random people hated about some aspect country (in this case Canada).
• this article should only be about people who self-declare as anti-Canadian--Cornellier (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC) (copy edited the following day)[reply]

I'd love to see this article deleted, it is variously neutral-and-pointless or POV-and-current. The term is inconsistently applied and the content is inconsistently sourced. bouched 07:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for deletion in 2006 and was kept. Trying to get it deleted might be an exercise in futility. But I'd support it if you want to have a go. Instructions are here. Another approach might be to uses Anti-Australian_sentiment as a model. --Cornellier (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally 2 (two) lines on this page. What's the point? Quangsp (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quangsp: This is one of millions of permastubs that infest this site. It was nominated for deletion in 2006 and kept. Deletion is nearly impossible due to rampant inclusionism, but I'd back you up if you want to have a go. Instructions are here: Wikipedia:How_to_delete_a_page. --Cornellier (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]