Talk:Canadian dollar/Archives/2018

Canadian Dollar Value

There's been a series of edits to the recent peaks the dollar has hit. How frequently do we want that info changed? Krupo 17:14, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to be the one sentence, "It has since continued its rise, closing at $0.8029 US on October 20, 2004"; the value and date can just be updated on a regular basis as this trend goes on, IMO. If it peaks or makes other noteworthy activity, that can be noted at that time. Radagast 00:43, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

It hit a 30 year high yesterday at $0.9864 US. Someone should edit that in. 142.68.197.58 23:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Anybody know why the dollar exchange section seems to end six years ago -- complete with a value chart for 2008? Ajericn (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Are the new fives and new tens smaller than the older bills? And aren't they more similar in colour and design to each other than the older bills were? Does anyone else think that this is a trend toward a more American style of currency? Tubby

Huh? The new $5 and $10 are the same colours as the previous $5 and $10 - blue and purple - and the same size (152.4 x 69.85 mm). The Bank of Canada website on the new series indicates that this will be the case for the rest of the new notes, too. To my eye they're no more similar in design to each other than the previous $5 and $10 (or any two American notes).

If they did something obvious like make all the notes red, then I'd agree with you; but I don't think it's likely, since visually impaired people would pitch all holy hell, and well they should. - Montréalais

Aren't some commemorative coins struck at the Ottawa mint, rather than at Winnipeg? Arwel 17:04 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think the coloured rows are garish and hard to read. They strain my eyes. Should they be made plain? Maybe pictures of the notes and coins should be uploaded. - RadRafe

I found the colored rows almost impossible to read. Pleaae someone make it go away. Please. Rmhermen 22:13 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I second your desire for banknote scans. We do this for Euro_banknotes and United States dollar among others. -- Finlay McWalter 12:36, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Suggestions for bill colors:

2 dollars

5 dollars

10 dollars

20 dollars

50 dollars

100 dollars

1000 dollars

I also think that scans would be not a bad idea. - sik0fewl 12:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are very specific laws in the Criminal Code about how the image of Canadian banknotes may be used. They may be incompatible with useful display in an encyclopedia. - Montréalais 17:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

True, but Wiki has to follow U.S. laws, no? ;) --Krupo 02:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

"You can pop the centre out of a toonie. This is (or was) in fact true. Many toonies in the first shipment of the coins were defective, and could separate if struck hard. This problem was quickly corrected. "

one would assume you could still break them if you tried hard enough Pellaken 05:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Each of these represents the flag that Canada was using at the time of the Prime Minister depicted on the bill.

This is wrong. The $2 and $1000, after all, depicted the Queen, not a prime minister; the $10 featured Macdonald, who became prime minister 25 years before the Red Ensign was approved for use on the Merchant Marine and more than 50 years before it was used on goverrnment buildings; and the Union Jack is on the $100 with Robert Borden, who came after Laurier who appears with the Red Ensign. Montrealais

---

If they aren't yet, the 2001-series bills will soon be more common than the old ones; should this be reflected on the table? We could put the newer descriptions above the old, or just wait for the new $50 to become prevalent and take the old ones out entirely.

Or, we make Canadian banknotes and take them all off here entirely. Any thoughts?

Radagast 19:09, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

In Canada, it is common to find American 1¢, 5¢, and 10¢ coins in circulation (just like there are Australian 5, 10, 20, and 50 cent coins in New Zealand and vice versa;) this interchangeability is considered somewhat unique in the western world

Clearly it's not considered unique, because of the Australasian example! 81.156.161.238 07:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian dollar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605173024/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2007/12/20/time-mag-newsmaker.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/12/20/time-mag-newsmaker.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This article desperately needs a MAJOR update

I did update it today in light of the incredibly low value of the Canadian dollar (Canadian dollar plunges to 71 cents) but I am not an economist. Clearly, some previous editors had a lot of expertise. I hope that some will again use their knowledge to do a major update. The dramatic drop in value in 2014-2015 probably affects other aspects of this article, such as the one that suggests that the dollar is a favorite of central banks. (How could it be today, considering the regular decline in its value.) And the situation will not improve soon, considering the dropping value of oil, a major export of Canada. See the Value section for the changes I made and the new citations I added as a hint of what additional editing this article needs. Peter K Burian 17:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian

Your edits have been reverted. I suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies on WP:ORIGINAL, WP:TALKPAGE, WP:CCPOL, and WP:RELIABLE. Although the Canadian dollar's numerical value has indeed declined (as have most major currencies relative to the USD), CAD is still the 5th most held reserve currency in the world according to the latest IMF figures. Nothing has changed with respect to the Canadian government's strong sovereign position — http://business.financialpost.com/investing/global-investor/why-a-world-in-turmoil-is-still-parking-its-cash-in-canada — nor has the relative stability of Canada's legal and political systems decreased. The Canadian dollar has been a reserve currency among various central banks since the 1950s! This was made more prominent in 2013 when the IMF officially designed CAD as a reserve currency. NorthernFactoid (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time today but I will revert some of your edits or revise it as necessary to reflect the disastrous devaluation of the currency. Start an Edit War and I will file for Dispute Resolution. Then, we will let some editors who have no interest in this topic, except for accuracy, decide whose version is correct and of value to the reader. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The value of the loonie has been crashing ... how can the lede ignore that???

How indeed? Who had done the editing that deleted all of my mentions from the lede (and perhaps from other sections of the article?) about the distastrous state of our currency.

Whether we like it or not, we owe it to the reader to be aware of the serious problem with this currency.

Read this: MARKETS Canadian dollar lurches lower Jan. 12, 2016 Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01/12/canadian-dollar-lurches-lower/

"The Canadian dollar continued its slide on Tuesday, as it dropped to the C$1.43 mark against the greenback for the first time since 2003. Inverting that rate, one Canadian dollar will now get you less than 70 US cents south of the border.

Having traded at parity with greenback as recently as the middle of 2013, the Loonie has struggled over the past 18 months amid a double whammy of the oil price collapse and expectations for a divergence in monetary policies between the Canadian and US central banks The Canadian dollar was among the world’s worst performing major currencies last year, losing 16 per cent of its value against its US counterpart. It has extended its losses so far this year by another 3.2 per cent. In early afternoon trading in New York, the US dollar was trading 0.5 per cent higher at C$1.4292." Peter K Burian (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the issue of the Canadian dollar being a widely held reserve currency? NorthernFactoid (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevance: How many governments would still be investing in a currency that is on a downhill spiral? Peter K Burian (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Then find sources that show this, don't assume! What's so hard to understand about this? NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well you will love my new edits. Every sentence is based on a citation from highly respected news organizations! And they are not from 2009 and 2011 like the citations in the Reserve currency section, for example. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit War has been started by another user

As the history will confirm, NorthernFactoid has reverted every modification I have made to this article, particularly those that discuss the major devaluation of the dollar.

I cannot believe that a Wikipedia article on a currency has no mention of the plunge in value that started in mid-2014. The current content and most citations pre-date the major devaluation. The article makes it sound as if the dollar were still valuable.

Yes, in May 2014, the dollar seemed to be sound and NorthernFactoid bases his content on articles such as this that pre-dated the plunge. May 13, 2014 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-resilience-has-foreign-central-banks-loading-up-on-loonies/article18635614/

However, especially since 2014, there has been a major devaluation. In 2013, the Canadian dollar was at par with the US dollar but that has since changed dramatically. Jan. 12, 2016, from the Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01/12/canadian-dollar-lurches-lower/ The Canadian dollar continued its slide on Tuesday, as it dropped to the C$1.43 mark against the greenback for the first time since 2003. Inverting that rate, one Canadian dollar will now get you less than 70 US cents south of the border. Having traded at parity with greenback as recently as the middle of 2013, the Loonie, as the Canadian dollar is known, has struggled over the past 18 months amid a double whammy of the oil price collapse and expectations for a divergence in monetary policies between the Canadian and US central banks. The Canadian dollar was among the world’s worst performing major currencies last year, losing 16 per cent of its value against its US counterpart. It has extended its losses so far this year by another 3.2 per cent.

It is unbelievable that an on-line encyclopedia's article would ignore such facts. I intend to revise the article again, and if my revisions are reverted again by NorthernFactoid, I will definitely seek assistance using the Dispute resolution, WP:DRR Peter K Burian (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You're completely missing my point NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What point am I missing NorthernFactoid? The article, as per your edit (after reverting my revisions) was frozen in time, at a time when the value of the Canadian dollar was high. Too many of the citations are from 2009 to 2013 when the dollar was strong. Granted you added some new ones about foreign countries still holding Canadian dollars. But I did not see any coverage about the past 18 months - the era of the plummeting Loonie - in your text. I repeat: It is unbelievable that an on-line encyclopedia's article would ignore such facts.

As you will see, I have done some editing again today that does now include that information. If you revert it again - to again remove all mention of the low value of the dollar - I will have the final grounds to file for Dispute Resolution.

•The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN." OK, we have nicely met that requirement. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You're making assumptions and not sourcing them! You're also using forecasts made by currency traders and treating that as fact. Forecasts don't mean anything, and therefore cannot be treated as fact. What's so hard to understand about this? Stop editing until you reach consensus. You're not respecting this; the edit war has been started by you! NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. In your most recent 20:50, 13 January 2016‎ edit, you added something about the holdings in Candian dollars, but you also deleted a sentence I had written and failed to mention that deletion in your Edit summary. (This was it: Although this currency was on par with the US dollar in mid-2013, it has experienced significant devaluation since mid- 2014 and was one of the world’s worst performing major currencies in 2015.) No problem, I have added it back. Delete it once again and I will have full grounds for Dispute Resolution. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Canadian dollar value

One Canadian editor in particular seems to be obsessed with including references to the Canadian dollar's recent decline relative to the US dollar. From an internationalist perspective, why should the bulk of discussion on 'value' of the Canadian dollar be described only in US dollar terms (as if to imply CAD and USD are the only two currencies on Earth)? If the consensus says the Canadian dollar's exclusive decline in US dollar terms deserves mentioning, there's no need to mention this in the opening paragraphs when it would be better suited to the value section—not unlike all other currency articles on Wikipedia (including this one until today). There's certainly no need for a 'declining value' subsection when 'value' already denotes both increases and decreases in numerical forex value. Also, there can be no unverified opinion or hearsay inferred from the mere forex value of the currency relative to its US counterpart. Furthermore, sources used to corroborate points should not include theoretical future currency forecasts treated as contemporary fact—i.e. more opinion WP:QUESTIONABLE. As all major forex valuations fluctuate constantly, I feel it's counterproductive to make changes to this article every time the Canadian dollar hits a new high or low in US dollar terms.

It's odd the editor doesn't feel the need to edit the currency pages of all other majors that have declined in tandem with the Canadian dollar (relative to the US dollar), nor does he feel the need to mention the Canadian dollar's current increasing forex value relative to a number of non-US currencies (this is an important point)! Perhaps this says more about the Canadian penchant for obsessively comparing anything Canadian to anything American while bizarrely discounting other non-American comparisons as if they don't exist. In keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines, I'd like to achieve some form of consensus before allowing bold edits to this article WP:BRD. Thank you. NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am Canadian and I read about the dollar every week in the newspaper. I know nothing about the currency of other countries so why would I edit those? How can we achieve consensus? I add a section about the devaluation of the currency, with full citations, and you delete it. If other editors who have been involved in this topic would get involved in this debate, that would be useful. But they are not doing so.

How would I know if you are Canadian or not? Peter K Burian (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what my nationality is! You have to engage here before making bold edits to the article. Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). We achieve consensus by hearing from more editors. Until then, you cannot make unilateral changes to the article as you see fit! WP:BRD Why are you not understanding this? NorthernFactoid (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Canadian dollar's value has been plummeting for 18 months. That is a significant part of this topic. I simply added that information, with reliable citations. You keep deleting them. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You are a Wikipedia editor as am I. I have as much right to edit this article, adding valid information supported by citations, as anyone does. Peter K Burian (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Critically reread the entirety of my initial statement. You are invited — read the guidelines: Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante) WP:BRD — to find consensus and then make bold edits! Not the other way around. Discuss first, and edit after. Do not edit as you see fit, and try to impose your will after because other editors do not share your logic. It doesn't work like that! I am happy to engage with you constructively but only after the article has been returned to its status quo ante from which changes can be made in consensus. It's true everyone is invited to contribute, but Wikipedia isn't a free-for-all. Certain standards and guidelines must still be respected! Your combative edit warring has been reported. NorthernFactoid (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been adding fully substantiated, fully-cited factual information that is highly relevant to a discussion of the Canadian Dollar. I cannot understand how such content can be viewed as "opinions".e.g. My current edit (if it has not been deleted by someone for the fourth time) includes the following: Although this currency was on par with the US dollar in mid-2013, it has experienced significant devaluation since mid-2014 and was called “the perennial underperformer” by a Bank of America currency strategist in mid-January 2016. (Canadian dollar sinks below 70¢ as oil dips under $30 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/canadian-dollar-flirts-with-70-cent-mark/article28127395/ | Globe and Mail | Toronto)

AND Canada's economy is also based on manufacturing and a low dollar may help to stimulate exports to countries such as the U.S. with strong currencies, but there has not yet been much evidence of this potential benefit. An analysis in the Toronto Star indicates, "it’s unclear whether the low loonie will be able to stimulate the export sector as it has in the past. There has been a fundamental shift in the dynamics of that crucial industry due to the closure of 10,000 export-oriented businesses in the past decade alone." (The dollar closed at 69.71 cents U.S. Wednesday putting pressure on Ottawa to dig deep into its economic stimulus tool kit http://www.thestar.com/business/2016/01/13/loonie-closes-below-70-cents-us-for-first-time-in-nearly-13-years.html |Toronto Star)Peter K Burian (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention the Canadian dollar's current value, but I generally agree with NorthernFactoid. It seems unnecessary to mention any value in the lead when there's an entire section already committed to value. Peter K Burian does seem to struggle with the idea of consensus building before bold editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.8.206 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You would have much higher credibility if you were not totally anonymous. Since the lede raves about this currency and its desirability, I feel that a brief mention of the devaluation - which has been a huge issue in the news media, around the world - is necessary and relevant. (MOST other currencies have not crashed in the past 18 months, so value is of minimal interest. However, the Canadian dollar is at at 13 year low, having plummeted in value, so this is a significant issue in this article). Hence, I added back a much shorter comment about the devaluation. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

People disagree with you Peter K Burian. I now completely agree with NorthernFactoid on your taking issue with consensus building. I don't think the lead raves about this currency at all. It presents the facts as are, no different from any other currency page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.8.206 (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You're assuming the Canadian dollar is less desirable. This is your opinion. I've looked at the current sources and believe the lead is well-sourced to support it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.8.206 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

People disagree with me? Who are the plural people? Again, I say your comments would be more credible if they were signed. I checked the TALK page for 204.239.8.206 and it shows no activity at all on Wikipedia for four years. And it is basically anonymous: 204.239.8.206 "This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users."

Then, suddenly, 204.239.8.206 is active for only a single article on Jan. 14, Canadian Dollar. History: editing of only a single article in 2011 Macintosh startup, none in 2012, none in 2013, none in 2014, none in 2015 and never an edit on Canadian Dollar ... ‎until suddenly it is editing this one, starting only today, during the debate I am having with NorthernFactoid and happening to agree with him. Quite a coincidence? Interesting.

Yes, the lead was well sourced before I added a bit about the major devaluation, but primarily with 2014 and older articles. Why was there not a singe article cited that mentioned the plummeting value over 18 full months? I suggest reading this article: Canadian dollar will drop to 59 cents US in 2016, Macquarie forecasts Canadian Broadcasting Corporation http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/macquarie-loonie-forecast-1.3401644 Jan 13, 2016 Peter K Burian (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "forecast" is to "predict or estimate." Judging by the comments here, I think that's the point other editors are trying to make Peter K Burian. You're attempting to use "predictions or estimates" as facts, and that's wrong. So go ahead and add me to the editors who disagree with you. This is a good example of why forecasts aren't fact: http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/07/08/loonie_will_return_to_parity_by_end_of_2014_cibc.html Unsigned comments are still valid comments. 50.92.134.24 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallelujah! I don’t think I’ve come across another editor on Wikipedia as unworldly as Peter K Burian. This guy is as pigheaded as they come! Of course, if anyone disagrees with him they’re bullies and in the wrong. 'However, the Canadian dollar is at at 13 year low, having plummeted in value, so this is a significant issue in this article'. Wrong! This article isn’t about the Canadian dollar’s value, it’s about the Canadian dollar! Other currencies haven’t ‘crashed’? The one-year performance of CAD exceeds that (i.e. the Canadian dollar has performed better) of the Brazilian real, euro, the Australian and New Zealand dollars, the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone, the Japanese yen etc. I can’t even have a rational discussion with this numpty. Among other unfounded assumptions, he wants to make forex value central to this article based on his opinion and the opinion of two currency traders (it doesn’t matter if they’re sourced, opinion is still opinion); it’s beyond bizarre: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/032415/worst-performing-currencies-2015.asp

And again, there’s no reason for a subsection called ‘declining value’ when there's a ‘value’ section that already implies increases and decreases (i.e. values go up and down constantly). There was no subsection called ‘increasing value’ when the dollar gained and exceeded parity in US dollar terms, so why is it necessary to have a subsection devoted to ‘declining value’ and sourced using opinionated theoretical currency forecasts that clearly violate guidelines on sourcing (not to mention common sense)? The user doesn’t understand forex and economics though; this is the root of the problem. Unfortunately, he probably votes too.

P.S. Peter K Burian, are you accusing me of sock puppetry because someone else only partially agrees with me but not you? How juvenile! That’s a very serious allegation, and actually the allegation violates even more Wikipedia guidelines WP:NOASSUMESOCK! But what do you care about guidelines? Guidelines don’t mean anything to you. Anonymous entries are still valid, nimrod! That’s what Wikipedia is all about! NorthernFactoid (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)