Talk:Canada/Archive 3

Archives
	2003–2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 2006 7 8 9 10 2007 11 12 13 14 15 2008 16 17 18 2009 19 2010 20 2011 21 2012 22 2013 23 2015–present 24 25 26 27 Discussion of Canada's official name Canada's name Official Name 1 Future TFA paragraph Main Page ;

This is an archive of past discussions about Canada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

→

Statute of Westminster vs BNA Act 1867

The Statute of Westminster is a pretty obscure piece of British legislation. Though it is taught for all of five seconds in Canadain high schools, nobody really pays it any notice and it is not commemerated by anybody except maybe wistfully by the Monarchist Club. The British North America Act(1867) is usually the date given for the founding of Canada as an independant country. And an arguement could be made for the Constitution Act(1982)which finally removed the right for appeal to the British Privy Council for criminal cases. Even now the Head of State appointed by the Queen of England can disolve Parliament and force an election. The First Nations still have treaties with the British Crown because of treaties entered into before July 1st 1867. When the Canadain government fails in its treaty responsibilities Natives still press their case in Westminster. I don't think that it has a stronger claim than 1867.

First of all, it's the Monarchist LEAGUE, not the "Monarchist Club". Also, there is no Queen of England, as England is not its own kingdom, it is a constituent country of the UNITED KINGDOM. You should really say "The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Canada does not have any sort of head of state APPOINTED by our Queen. That is entirely impossible, as the Queen herself is our head of state (You don't believe me? British North America Act, Section IV. Executive power, paragraph one, sentence one -- I think). If you believe Her Excellency the Govenor General is our head of state, you are wrong, as she is simply a Representative of our head of state (the Queen).

Two16 06:47 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that there is no "British Crown" in Canada anymore-- not since the Statute of Westminster effectively ended the British government's ability to interfere with Canadian affairs. That Statute elevated all the ex-dominions and colonies who signed on to an equal status with Britain, meaning the Crown could no longer be purely British. Instead it became a pan-national body, divided equally among the Realms, and operating distinctly within each jurisdiction. This fact was hammered home with the patriation of the constitution in 1982, meaning the laws and rules surrounding the Royal Family and Crown for Canada are now in Canada's hands. Thus, the Crown in Canada is known as the Crown in Right of Canada, or simply, the Canadian Crown. Only in Britain does the British Crown exist.

All the treaties signed between the First Nations peoples and the British Crown now sit with the Crown in Right of Canada. gbambino

In 1929, Lord Sankey compared the Canadian Constitution with "a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits". Indeed, the Queen does not appoint the G-G of Canada. The actual functions of G-G resemble more with those of the head of state. Anyway, BNAA 1867 said something about the Cabinet and Prime Minister functions? --Vasile 19:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Queeen currently DOES appoint the Governor-General, but on the advice of the Prime Minister. In recent history she has appoint whoever thee PM picked, but theoretically could select someone else if she wanted to. It is the same as th GG being able to dissolve parliament an election as well as naming the PM, but the GGs rarely use any of the powers they have, The only one I can think of was Byng. So the queen has power, but doesn't use it.

--BrentS 22:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) Read the article on the Westminster system. The BNA Act section III Executive power says "9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." The next clause says "10. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated." Clause 11 says about the cabinet "11. There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council for Canada; and the Persons who are to be Members of that Council shall be from Time to Time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and Members thereof may be from Time to Time removed by the Governor General." The cabinet by convention is the functioning part of the Privy Council. Clause 13 says "13. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor General acting by and with the Advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada." ie. the GG acts through the cabinet or privy council. See the full text at various websites.

Sections 11 to 13 of BNAA 1867 are referring to the Privy Council. That is not the Cabinet, and the Privy Council hasn't ever detained the executive power. The preamble of the BNAA defined the Canadian Constitution being "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom". A couple decades before 1867, the British North-American provinces gained "responsible government", similar in principle with that of the United Kingdom.

About the name of the country, s3. of Constitution Act of 1867: "one dominion under the name of Canada". --Vasile 12:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "under the name of Canada" not "under the name of the Dominion of Canada", a phrase which appears no where in the BNA Act 1867. AndyL 01:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canada's Name: Canada vs Dominion of Canada - Again! (see above)

Do many other country sites have sections devoted to the origin of the name? Since the name of Canada is so contentious (Canada vs Dominion of Canada) and there is already an article Canada's Name, why is the Naming section still there? Is there a REDIRECT from Dominion of Canada? The article is getting quite long and we are getting warning messages about its length.--BrentS 17:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Provinces and Territories

Canadians may know the names of the provinces, but nowhere are they listed in the article - even the section on Provinces and Territories barely MENTIONS in passing Quebec and Yukon. This is not how a main article should be constructed. I suggest that the details about geography means little to non-Canadians if they do not already know which place names refer to the provinces. The provinces are a basic political unit & essential to understanding Canada. If there is concern about article length, I suggest that the extensive details in the sections on Geography, Provinces & Territories, and Politics be moved to their respective sub-articles. I have reinserted the listing of the names of the provinces & territories into the article. --JimWae 17:38, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Regions

The chart that lists the provinces/territories, their capitals, and the regions in whcih they are located concerns me. There is a thousand ways to carve Canada up into regions, and there will never be any agreement on the correct way to do it. I suggest deleting the regions from this chart as it is inherently POV and subject to debate. That debate can be caried on in the article about the regiosn of Canada, instead on the main page for the country. Comments? Ground Zero 19:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reiterate my comments, especially because some uninformed anonymous editor keeps try to put Newfoundland and Labrador into the Maritimes. If it happens again, I'll go ahead and remove this contentious and unnecessary part of the table, unless someone can provide a compelling reason to keep it. Ground Zero 16:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

Please somebody else please go to Template:Canada_infobox & revert vandalism -I've already done my limit --JimWae 03:32, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

Why is the Red Ensign in there? I'm pretty sure that flag is obsolete, and even if it's still used somewhere for something, it's 40 years out of date as a national flag. Other country pages don't seem to have old flags on display.

It's gone now. The changes to the culture section were very POV - wishful thinking, really. It would be wonderful if we could talk about Canadian culture withot reference to the United States, but it would also be counterfactual. Ground Zero 15:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanman2010 (Vancouver Vandal?) is a vandal for the Monarchist League. I'd advise reverting anything he put in on sight. Watch Template:Canada infobox too. --JimWae 16:51, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

JimWae, Do you have any evidence to back up that accusation? I found that to be a very shallow statement. Perhaps he is just a little patriotic? --Diskadia 2:55, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

I put the flag there because I feel it belongs there. This flag is part of our country and part of our history a lot of people feel that it should be next to the offical flag as it is called. When the Maple Leaf flag was proclaimed our flag in no way did anyone say the former one was obsolete rather that it may be used still with equal stature to the new flag. This is our flag too and I think it belongs next to the other one. my father fought under the Red Ensign for Canada and his father did before him and his father before him. A lot of people consider this the true Canadian flag and im only trying to put the flag in it's rightful place. Call it the royal flag or the former flag underneath then but I feel it needs to be there. For the culture bit was a work in progress I don't understand why this is called an open webserver when people won't let you post anything? I am in no way vandalising as you put it im just adding information that I think should be there and it is not offensive in anyway. (posted by User:Vanman2010)

Sorry, Vanman, an open-content encyclopedia doesn't mena the you get to have your way about everything. Since you are new here, it would be worth your while to review Wikipedia's policies to see what it is we are trying to do here. You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs, but this is not a forum for opinions and beliefs. We are trying to build an encyclopedia.

My father, grandfather and great-grandfather also served under the Canadian Red Ensign in its various incarnations, and I have a big, beautiful linen one in my home. But it is not the flag of Canada. The CRE is featured in the Flag of Canada article.

The infobox is an attempt to standarize country articles so that readers can easily find key information about countries in the same place in each article. The infobox does not show former flags of any countries, and nor should it show the former flag of Canada, no matter how much sentimental attachment we have to it.

If everyone added into the Canada article evrything about canada that is important to them, the article would quickly become too big to be useful to readers. Wikipedia has guidelines on the length of artcles, and articles are kept within those guidelines by transferring text and images to sub-articles, like the Flag of Canada article. I have previously transferred blocks of text to the Languages of Canada and other branch articles.

While some people consider it to be the "true Canadian flag", it is not the legal one.

As far as the culture part, you may have been adding some worthwhile material, but you also deleted a lot of material that made sense. That was an indication to me that you were attempting to subvert that part of the article to your own beliefs. If you intend to re-write a part of an article over time, you should do so off-line (e.g., copy it into word processing software, and do your work there), and then make the change when your work is complete. That way, people don't jump to the conclusion that you have finished when you haven't. You could also copy it onto a user page, e.g, User:Vanman2010/test, and work on it there until it is ready. Ground Zero 19:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay I apologise I was just trying to give some information about Canada. But still can't the Canadian Red Ensign be on any part of the Canada page? What exactly can I even add to the page? Also about beliefs the whole page is someones belief and I think there is more to Canadian culture than some gay people getting married and some marijuana users don't you? But if im not allowed to add things to the page I won't then. (Unsigned post by Vanman2010)

There is no need to apologize for trying to give people information about Canada. It's just that there is a mountain of information about Canada. It can't all be on one page. That's why we have branch articles.

Even if a former flag should be in the article, which Canadian Red Ensign should be there? None of our forefathers fought under the flag you posted. The flag that you posted was adopted in 1957. (We left Korea in 1953.) The previous version, adopted in 1921, had green leaves and the harp was different. Before that, the Canadian Red Ensign had a shield made up of the shields of the nine provinces (adopted in 1907), and before that, a shield of the seven provinces, and before that, of the four provinces. (The last one is shown in the Canadian Red Ensign article.) (Source: FOTW) And what about the Canadian Blue Ensign? Should all of these flags be on the Canada page? The fact that there are so many is a good argument for there being a separate pages called Flag of Canada and Canadian Red Ensign, which there are. Unfortunately, the Flag of Canada has one of the many Canadian Red Ensigns that flew over this land and its waters, and the Canadian Blue Ensign. It would be great if Canada's other former flags could be added to the Canadian Red Ensign article. Perhaps you'd be interested in taking up that project?

No one is prohibiting you from adding things to this or any other page. But you shouldn't expect that you will get your way every time. There are others here who disagree with what you're posting in this instance. Specifically, you picked one of Canada's several former flags, and insisted that it be treated the same as the current national flag, even though no other country infobox has a former flag in it.

Please review the message at the bottom of the edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." I'm sorry, but that's the way things are here at Wikipedia.

As far the culture stuff, yes, there is more to Canada than same-sex marriage and marijuana, and the article covers more than that. But you haven't explained why you deleted content about the American influence on Canadian culture, which is real, whether we like it or not. Ground Zero 21:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I thought it was a nice looking one and got if off a Canadian government website. Well I was going to add more for culture including american influences and other cultures for that matter but was researching more information didn't think people would jump on it so quickly. Anyway im not going to add anything to Canada seems like as soon as you do anything or update something it gets changed back lol some people must be really protective of their work. I just wish the page truly reflected the country. Sincerly,

 Vanman2010

== Culture == - In this article Canadian culture was described beyond our traditions and customs to supposedly include liberal social policies and conservative fiscal policies supposedly supported by most Canadians and Canadian governments. I won't bother rewording the paragraph myself, but I would suggest a change as those statements are innacurate. First of all every Canadian government from 1867 to 1984 opposed the idea of free trade and in the free trade election of 1988, despite the Tory majority, 57% of Canadians voted against the deal and many still oppose it today or at least want it reformed.

Also in respect to same sex marriage current polls done this year (2005) by a variety of sources (the CBC, EKOS, the National Post, Environics, etc.) show a good majority of Canadians opposed to changing the traditional definition, so I think that it is misleading to define Canadian culture as including controversial and not popularly accepted political policies like free trade and same sex marriage. On health care and balanced budgets however the author was very correct those are two strongly suppoted political practices in this country, most Canadians are dissatisfied with some aspects of health care service, but support for universal health care is almost uninanamous in this country. The same can be said, since 1993 anyway for support for balanced fiscal budgets as well.

Well in light of what recently happened, I would like to see some overhauling of the Culture section myself. I have made a few feeble attempts at this with the 'early europeans' paragraph. (posted as an unown prior to me joining). -- Diskadia

There's also jack in that paragraph about the special nature of French-Canadian culture. - Montréalais 04:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to polls that I have seen over the past year a majority of Canadians either support same-sex marriage, or they are almost evenly devided on the issue (with big regional differences). For the most part, I think the reference to same-sex marriage in the article is fine, but I have a problem with the constant references to the US in this section. There is am implication there that we have same-sex marriage, free trade, etc. just to distinguish ourselves from the US. That's absurd. It makes no sense to suggest that everything that has evolved in Canada has done so as a reaction to American culture.

Also, I agree with Montrealais. The fact that there is no mention of francophone culture in the culture section of an article about Canada is a big oversight. -Andrew

More name woes

An anonymous editor inserted a note that Canada is "more formally known as the Confederation of Canada without any explanation. Let's be clear: the Government of Canada is the organization in charge of these things. It calls the country "Canada", and not anything else. How can it be "formally known as" something that the Government of Canada or its constitution does not call it?

Canada is a confederation, but it is not formally the "Confederation of Canada".
It was established as a dominion, and therefore commonly called the "Dominion of Canada", but it is no longer.
One can contruct a theoretical argument that it is a kingdom, but no one calls it that.
It is definitely not the "Most Serene Borealic Suzerainty of the United Provinces and Miscellaneous Territories of Canada" even if you have a very reason why is should be called that.

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your pet project of changing Canada's name and/or description. Rant completed. Thank you for your time. Ground Zero 18:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

French in Ontario

There has been some back-and-forth in edits about where French is commonly spoken in Ontario: eastern and southern Ontario, or eastern and northern Ontario. While there are many francophones in southern Ontario, they form only a small percentage of the population; it is northern Ontario that (together with eastern Ontario) contains most communities with a large percentage of francophones, such as North Bay, Timmins, Kapuskasing, and Hearst. David 18:10, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Maybe this should read, "eastern, north-eastern and south-western Ontario" to reflect the francophone communities around Windsor. In fact there are probably more francophones living in Mississauga than in either the NE or SW, but the fact is that they do not have communities, but live in the middst of other linguistic groups. Ground Zero 17:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever been to Mississauga? You could go to Square One and never hear anyone ever speak French. In fact, Statistics Canada validates my qualitative assessment: there are only 7,910 francophones in the 'Sauga, making up a little under 2% of the population. Sudbury, on the other hand, has 43,340 francophones making up 28.2% of the population. Tiny Hearst has 5,080 francophones, making up 88.9% of that community's population. Darkcore 04:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Massive revert by User: Cause of death

User:Cause of death - a one day user did a massive revert today w/o comment - I am restoring

Canada: state or country?

A recent edit changed introductory paragraph from saying that Canada was a 'soverign state' to a 'soverign country'. I don't think that new choice in terminology is appropriate in this case. If you look at the linked article for 'country' you see a distinction that 'country' refers specifically to a geographic region, while 'state' refers to an independent political unit. I don't much care if we choose to use the word 'country' instead of 'state'. But, to call it a 'soverign country' seems to be a misnomer; you're mixing the geographic and the political. So, is this article talking about a political unit that happens to exist on one contiguous piece of land, or are we talking about a piece of land that happens to be occupied by have an independent state? 24.222.2.222Luke

HELP!

I keep trying to move the all-caps page starting with something like CANADA IS THE BEST back here and it doesn't appear to work! Somebody please explain. Georgia guy 02:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I've be trying to do the same. The database seems to currently be experiencing problems. Hopefully the problem will clear up soon. If not it might be a good idea to contact a developer. - SimonP 02:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've also tried numerous times over the past half hour or so. I eventaully received the error "Please stop trying to move Canada. All of you", or something to that effect. I assume that means someone knows of the problem and will fix it. Mindmatrix 02:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I tried to move a completely unrelated article and got a "Stop trying to move Canada message" - wierd. Where did Canada go to, anyway? NoAccount

CANADA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD SAODUHSAUODHASUODHSAOHDSAOUHDSAUOHDSAD... -- grm_wnr Esc 02:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem was that too many people were trying to move it back. It's now back where it belongs, and protected against moves. Nobody should need to move the article on a whim, so it's no big loss. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole thing was a Wikipublicity stunt to promote Wikiportals. ℬastique▼^talk 02:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Northern-most country

The first sentence says Canada is the northern-most country in the world. Looking at a map, it appears part of Greenland is farther north. Which is correct? NoAccount 02:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Greenland isn't a country. -- phrawzty 22:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

That's an opinion rather than a matter of fact. Greenland is not a sovereign state but it could arguably claim to be a country. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The territory of Canada include the north pole...can't be more north than that...

The north pole forms part of Canada's maritime border. This point also forms the borders of at least Greenland, Russia, and the United States (Alaska). If the "north pole is part of Canada" logic is used, then technically all four countries are "the northern-most country in the world"

Canada's landmass is closer to the north pole, at any one point, than Russia or the USA. It's debatable whether Denmark (via Greenland) is closer than Canada, however... -- phrawzty 22:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

- Denmark, via Greenland, via Peary Land, is the northern most country[1]. Canada, via Nunavut, via Ellesmere island, is the second. The northern most point belongs to a country (call it Greenland or Denmark), but not Canada. Sure "Greenland is not a country", but neither is "Nunavut". They're both parts of a country (though with radically different relationships to them). So, what? Only in Canada are our northern claims taken seriously. Elsewhere, there as meaningless as Argentina's claims to "Argintinian anatartica". rob 01:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Front page links broken?

Why are the links to this article on the front page showing in red? --Jfruh 03:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Fallout from the page move crap earlier. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I would agree.--CanadianPride 00:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Important Cities

--Instead of having all of these skyline photos sprinkled randomly throughout the article, shouldn't there be a section called "Important Cities" like the one under the United States? There's currently nothing in this article that lists the top 10 (or 20) Canadian cities/metropolitan areas. --Jleon 15:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Canada may be a state

But Canada is never refered to as such in common dialog, I have never heard Canada called a state in my 20 years of living here. It is always called a country. However, according to the strict defintion found at country, state is the proper word to be used. The dictionary defintion is not as strict though, and therefore country could be used. Going with the strict defintion is fine, but, and here is the big but, all the articles on the states of the USA must explicitly state that they are not actually states. But are just called states. Fair is only fair. --metta, The Sunborn 19:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The Canadian Federation

I'm surprised that no attention was paid to the govt. of Canada reference I provided in my edit summary. If I'm incorrect, I would like to learn why, but please do me the courtesy of revewing and adressing the source I provided beforehand. El_C 08:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, everyone knows it's a soveriegn country, it is redundant. I have written many country leads, all of them are stable and remain unchallenged. A few times I removed something along the lines of x is an "an independent country." I left it for countries recently (a few years to a decade) made independent, but in Canada's case, de jure independence has taken place decades ago. I added the French being mostly spoken in Quebec. I fixed some grammatical erros. Please, then, review my revisions carefuly on all possible fronts. not just as per the name. Anyway, as we all know, I hope, the Dominion Office was abolished in 1937. I want to see sources which refer to Canada's official name as with Dominion in it — I provided an official govt. source for Federation, it's only fair that I would be accorded the same. And in the case such sources were mentioned here and I overlooked them, I offer my apologies, and request to be directed to them. El_C 08:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, El C, I couldn't find reference at reference to "Canadian Federation" being the official name of the country. There is a lot of information there. Perhaps you could point to exactly where to find it. In fact, the one reference I did find (in the section on 2003) was to the "Canadian federation", i.e., 'federation' was not capitalized, which indicates that it is not being used as a title.

I have trouble agreeing with your conclusion in any event: it seems that the Government of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Parliament of Canada are unlikely to be using the incorrect or informal name. At the United Nations and other international bodies, the name is only "Canada", even though many other countries use their full names. As far as I can tell, the only name for this country now is "Canada", not dominion, federation or confederation.

See the discussion above on "Canada" vs. "Dominion of Canada". Alex756 points out that:

As far as the Constitution is concerned it mentions the work Dominion but nowhere is the name Dominion of Canada used in the Constitution, the law that created the independent country of Canada is called "The Canada Act" (U.K.) (1982), not "The Dominion of Canada Act" thus the British Parliament put the final nail in the Dominion name when the Constitution was patriated.

This is equally true for "Canadian Federation". The term just isn't used.

And SunirShah (64.229.25.227 ) provides the following from the BNA Act:

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)

It does not say "Canadian Federation". Hmmm... while normally I would wait for a response, in this case, I think there is convincing evidence that the name is just "Canada", and not anything else, so I am going to make that change. El C, I encourage you to review this full talk page.

I have removed the "later" from the sentence about being granted dominion status. It is clear from historical documents, not just the constitution, that the term "dominion" was being used right from the beginning. See:

Ottawa Times, July 1, 1867: "To such ends the statesman and the patriot may well ask the people to raise up their hearts on this the inauguration day of the new Dominion...."
The Globe Monday, July 1, 1867 "Today, our loyal city will bear her part in celebrating an occasion destined in the future annals of these Provinces to be marked as a red letter day for all time. To-day, we assume the character of citizens of a DOMINION, and Toronto again becomes the Seat of Government of Upper Canada under its new name of the Province of Ontario."
The Unionist, and Halifax Journal Wednesday, July 3, 1867 "Dominion Day: The Dominion was inaugurated on Monday, under the most favourable auspices. The day was delightfully fine for outdoor demonstrations--in fact it was real Dominion weather. The greatest enthusiasm was evinced all over the city. The cordiality and enthusiasm evinced exceeded the most sanguine expectations of the friends of Union. Everywhere, with a few exceptions, the day was observed as a Public Holiday. Some few antis, who were of "no account," kept their shutters down and pretended to do business; but as the day wore on, many got ashamed of their opposition, and ere the torchlight procession moved off, they were found hurrahing vociferously for UNION and the NEW DOMINION! It is gratifying to know that every Union man behaved himself as Union men know how to do, and, altho' the antis were greatly afflicted all day, it is gratifying to know that they bore their affliction with becoming resignation, so that all the arrangements of the day were carried on without interruption. The programme published in our last was strictly adhered to. The booming of cannon announced the Birth of the New Dominion, and the ringing of church bells proclaimed the gladness."

I have made another change: Canada is not a federation of 10 provs + 3 territories. The territories are federal lands that are organized as territories for administration. The territories do not have any constitutional status as do the provinces. Ground Zero Ground Zero 13:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Sorry about that, I was sure it was the official name, I didn't realize it was limited to a constitutional convention (I authored an article about the Central African Federation), somehow I presumed that if it was uttered like that, it could be considered the official (or one of the official names), but obviously not in this case. Sorry again for wasting everyone's time, and for the whining. And thank you for keeping (well, thus far) all my changes to the lead aside from that error on the official name. El_C 14:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that we try to work out a compromise that reflects User:JimWae's valid point the "divided into" isn't correct, and User:E Pluribus Anthony's that we shouldn't get into the constitutional status of the territories in the overview section. I'm am sure that if we work together we can figure something out. Ground Zero 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the feedback; it seems that we're picking too many nits out of this. It also seems JimWae was not privy to our agreement, GroundZero, to edit the statement "e.g., divided into..." My contention is that just because Canada's territories are federally administered does not mean they are not federated (as the territories are federal creations and this is implicit in a Canadian context) nor does it mean they do not comprise the federal state; after all, that is what a federation is (with the political subdivisions and tiered divisions of powers and responsibilities that entails, etc.). The goal in the overview is just that, to be summative, and be clear all the same: explanations regarding the administration of the territories should be reserved for those sections and related articles: consult the 'Provinces and territories' section and articles (where this statement also appears!)

If this remains an issue, I suggest completely reworking the overview to cleave mentions of Canada being a federation and what it is divided into, i.e., put each in different sentences.

I would also suggest de-emphasising what the official name is (keep the styled note, get rid of the rest); there's a section for that too. (I merely made the editions to make that sentence flow better.)

Thoughts and thanks.

User:E_Pluribus_Anthony 07:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Alberta and Saskatchewan

The history of Canada section states that "...Canada included all of its present area except for Alberta and Saskatchewan (...) and Newfoundland..." by 1880. That doesn't seem accurate to me. The fact is, Canada claimed jurisdiction over all of its present lands (except for Newfoundland and Labrador) starting from the date that it purchased the Northwest Territories and Rupert's Land. The Government of Canada Atlas (http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/territorialevolution) depicts this process as having been completed by 1881. In 1905, Alberta and Saskatchewan were annexed from the NWT to exist as provinces, to improve the ability to govern the West in the wake of the gold rush. 24.222.2.222Luke

Dominion of Canada again

(Moved from Canada.

Reply: The official name of Canada is the Dominion of Canada whether people use it or not we are still a Consitutional Monarchy and a Dominion of equal status in the Commonwealth. For example the United States of America is sometimes just called "America" that doesn't mean that is now their official name. Canada is still a Domonion in the Commonwealth and until we become a republic which will probebly never happen we are still the Dominion of Canada. There is no where that states we are not the Dominion of Canada but there is evidence that says we are so im going to change it to the longform name Dominion of Canada because I believe it is correct techinically but leave the page as just Canada.

The above comment was posted by an anonymous editor.

It is not enough for an encyclopedia to say "because I believe it is correct". Please review the arguments on this page. The BNA Act referecens above make it clear that the name is "Canada". Canada is a dominion, yes, but that does not make the official name the "Dominion of Canada". Canada is also a federation and a monarchy, but the name is not "Federation of Canada" or "Kingdom of Canada". How could all of those simultaneously be the official names? "Canada" is the name in the constitution, and it is the name used by the Government of Canada. Ground Zero 17:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Even within the structures of the Commonwealth, Canada is not known as a 'Dominion'. It is known as a 'Realm'. (If we chose to appoint our own native monarch, then we would be known within the Commonwealth as a 'Monarchy'. If we chose to do away with having a monarch as head-of-state entirely, then we would be known as a 'Republic' within the Commonwealth.) That is refering to the type of government we have chosen to adopt, and the fact that we have chosen to maintain an official link with the British Monarchy. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the official name of the country. (Or with our status as equal members in the Commonwealth, for that matter...) The United States of America is a Republic. But we don't do around saying that its official name is "The Republic of The United States of America".24.222.2.222Luke

It is the name though the people actually choose it to be our name. We thought of calling ourselves Kingdom of Canada, New Britain and a bunch of others but the Dominion of Canada was the most popular so that is our name. The consituion states our name shall be the Dominon of_______ which is Canada so we are the Dominion of Canada. I think you are trying to change around a simple concept and make into something it is not. I still say we are the Dominon of Canada and it is not correct to state we are just Canada nothing else. Id revise that message or atleast put both on. Just like how Australia's consituion says they are known as the Commonwealth of Australia you hardley see them use their full name anymore but it is still technically the offical name and was chosen by the people. As is the Dominion of Canada so therefore the article is faulse in it's writings stating we are only Canada but in reality we are the Dominon of Canada. We are not called the federation of Canada because it wasn't chosen to be it and no where it says we are. It does say we are the Dominion of Canada and no where that has been ammended or changed so we are that and I think it should be put on the Canada page. As a conventional longform name or something the fact is it belongs there and it is incorrect to say it is not offical when the people of Canada choose the name ourselves and wanted the title.

If the constitution does state that Canada's name is 'Dominion of Canada' as you claim, then certainly you can provide a citation to the particular document which states this (i.e. Canada Act 1867, Statute of Westminster 1931, etc.) and a list of the relevant clauses in that document. I've read a large number of Canada's constitutional documents quite thoroughly since I noticed this little war on this page, and I've seen nothing which would indicate that Canada's name is anything other than Canada. KA

I have emailed the Government of Canada website, which says it accepts questions on Canadian politics and policies. As long as they don't think the question irrevelevant, I will have an answer (from the horse's mouth, as it were) within a day or two. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we all look forward to the answer to Consumed Crustacean's e-mail. In the meantime, I will point out again, that the BNA Act says:

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)

Section 3 does not say "One Dominion under the Name the Dominion of Canada". Section 4 does not say "the Name the Dominion of Canada shall be taken to mean...."

As far as the name that the people have chosen, the people have chosen successive governments that have used only "Canada", so if we're going on what the people want, I guess we're stuck with Canada until such time as a referendum comes along on the question. (I'm not holding my breath.) Ground Zero 12:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is Canada described as on: Canadian passports; Embassies and High Commission abroad; in Canadian Acts of Parliament? Astrotrain 20:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

From the Canadian High Commission in London:

Political System

Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a federal state with a democratic system of government. The Parliament of Canada, in Ottawa, consists of the House of Commons, whose members are elected, and the Senate, whose members are appointed. On average, Members of Parliament are elected every four years.

(No mention of "dominion". See [2] and [3]

From Passport Canada (the passport office), you can see pictures of the passport showing only "Canada". See [4] Ground Zero 20:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case, the name of the country is obviously "Canada", with "Dominion of Canada" either an unoffical or historical description. If none of the trappings of sovereign statehood use the term "Dominion of Canada", then it cannot exist as the offical name of the country. Astrotrain 21:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Canada would be the proper way to refer to the country. Our passports, our government, everywhere it is reffered to as "Canada". As for the email reply, it wasn't as consice as I wished, but here's the most relevant part, I guess:

Information on the origin of the name "Canada" is accessible from the "Earth Sciences Sector" section of Natural Resources Canada's Geomatics for Sustainable Development of Natural Resources Web site at the following URL:

Canada http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/education/prov_e.php#CANADA

On that site, the following is said (along with why Canada was chosen, what the other possibilities were, province naming, etc. Not a bad site, but maybe not exactly what we wanted):

on July 1, 1867, "the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick" became "one Dominion under the name of Canada".

That's that. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, searching the gc.ca site, it seems

that "Dominion of" is a title that was used in reference to Canada in legal documents and the like. However, it seems to have died in usage. It's like saying "Republic of" or "Province of" or the likes. Sure, some nations use those regularily ("Repulic of Congo", eh?), but many others rarely choose to use these titles. So seems to be the case for Canada. Etc, blah blah, I'm not really wording this comment right, methinks. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New email correspondance between myself and some gov't agency. Canada is the name "to be used for all ordinary purposes.", and the Dominion of Canada is the name "used in formal documents such as treaties." -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like the author of that e-mail knew what he/she was talking about. It doesn't take much to discover that recent "formal documents" do not use the term "Dominion of Canada." Look, for example, at the Constitution Act or the North American Free Trade Agreement. HistoryBA 00:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To add to this, the term "Canadian Confederation" or "Confederation of Canada" pop up once in a while and although this might represent a certain reality, it cannot be taken to be an official name for Canada. In the same way, the term Dominion in the text quoted are descriptive of the type of entity it was but is no more a legal name for a country then would be the following "One republic named United States of America"--Marc pasquin 15:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Brevity!

Over the next little while, I will be making editions to the overview article, which is WAY too long already. Please do not construe these edits as personal decisions or preferences about what should stay and what should go (e.g., mentions of Dominion, Queen's symbolism, language prevalence, geographic details) but more as what is germane to an overview article. Remember, all of this information is--or should be!--in the relevant subarticles, where elaboration, length, and detail are encouraged. Size does matter. Thanks! User:E Pluribus Anthony 06:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, in my attempts to keep the overview article for Canada brief though accurate, my revisions include the removal of unnecessary lanaguage ... including attempts to note the monarchy as being symbolic. To be accurate, it is symbolic AND functional with basis in law: see the Canada Act, 1867: s3 9, s4 17. Also note that there are plenty of other places in the overview article and subarticles where this is more pertinent. Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do not go by 32 kB - that has recently been changed to "a suggested length" - though I agree some sections seem to just wander on & on -- Btw, arguments can be made on both sides as to whether territories are part of the "confederation" (and so maybe POV should be avoided) that forms the federation - but clearly they are not "full & equal partners" in the process. The provinces formed the federation, the territories have had no real say. Those provinces that were formed from pieces of the territories are yet another matter --JimWae 22:03, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Hi there; thanks for the input. My efforts are to streamline and tidy up the article to remove extraneous language; it is clearly too long (let's keep Orwell's writing rules in mind) ... especially with relevant subarticles saying the same stuff. I am not at all arguing that the territories are 'full and equal' creatures in Confederation but, as creatures of the federal government, are still valid political subdivisions within it; any map will demonstrate this. Provinces and territories have different definitions in a Canadian context; the different tiered governments give form to the Canadian federation.

The main focus of my argument, though, is to keep such elaborations out of the overview; remember: details of territorial administration appear later in the overview and in the subarticle concerning the provinces and territories. Also note that, in the overview, the mere words 'provinces' and 'territories' link to the subarticle where such elaboration appears and is better placed.

Make sense?

E Pluribus Anthony 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not find such elaboration anywhere, though -- so I am reluctant to remove it from the initial section identifying Canada - esp. when it requires less wording. "Canada is a federation of 10 provinces with 3 territories" does not say that the territories are not part of the federation - though it does suggest there is something diff. about them. You are not, by chance, from one of those territories, are you? --JimWae 22:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

---

Jim:

Hey there; thanks for your response. Notations of or allusions to the federal (or at least differing) nature of the territories can be found in:

- last paragraph of section 'Provinces and territories of Canada' in Canada article - first paragraph in article Provinces and territories of Canada

Perhaps anything regarding territorial administration should be elaborated further upon in one or both of these sections--or made more clear just the same--but NOT upfront.

'With' works for me if it works for you. I think the current edition also works, though.

And I'm from Scarborough, Ontario or should I say east Toronto . . . or just Toronto? That is another story. :)

E Pluribus Anthony 23:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"... it is clearly too long (let's keep Orwell's writing rules in mind)..." I totally agree and will assist in editing to give it a more readable format and size. Sunray 05:48, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Greetings! Thanks for your help. I have made numerous editions/improvements to the entire article. I've brought the article down to 33 kB ... almost there; yay! But as JimWae noted, 32 kB is just "a suggested length," so I think we're OK! Besides, just take a peek at the article for Australia which, at 36 kB, is far more ... padded. :)

Enjoy!

E Pluribus Anthony 11:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saint-Pierre Et Miquelon?

Why does this article forget to mention that Canada borders France, more specifically it's overseas département, Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. Have we already had any discussion on this? I don't think it would make the article *too* much more legnthy to include something similar to "In addition to the United States, Canada also shares it's border with the French département of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon on the Grand Banks." Have we made any decisions on this?

Quite right! I'll add something. E Pluribus Anthony 18:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to what I suggested, as what you added failed to mention that St.Pierre & Miquelon are actually a part of France, which is the key point of putting this information in there. Maxwell C. 20:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The link to St. Pierre and Miquelon will reveal everything a reader wants to know; Greenland is a Danish dependency, but that is appropriately kept concise in the main article. Details can be placed in the subarticle. E Pluribus Anthony 13:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An article should give the reader basic information on why the link is included: there are numerous overshore islands around mainland Canada. Why would the article mention on these two? Adding in a brief reference to France provides the key information on why a reference is provided. ST P&M are pretty obscure to non-Canadians, whose interest may be piqued by learning that Canada shares a martime boundary with France. Ground Zero 13:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed; the current edition reads fine. I think, though, that the mere mention of other territories--with appropriate links--in the 'Geography' section implies that these territories are of greater relevance (i.e., proximity, etc.). The key, methinks, is to include pertinent information but in a concise manner. I also point out that the article length has krept up again, and I'm unsure if this is for the better (this from someone who was always chastised for excessive length when writing essays. :)) E Pluribus Anthony 15:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ottawa's status

What is the status of the capital Ottawa? I was told that it didn't belong to Ontario and was something like a federal district or territory (like Washington DC, Canberra or Brasilia). The list of provinces and territories doesn't mention Ottawa however. Could someone please clarify, please? Thanks! Luis rib 11:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ottawa is part of Ontario. The mealy-mouthed coiners of neologisms will try to tell you of a mythical place called "Ottawa-Hull" or "The National Capital Region". Ottawa has four seats in Parliament, and oddly enough they all voted Liberal - well, it is pretty much a company town. --Wtshymanski 14:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ok. Thx. Luis rib 14:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

Since this concept appears in the second paragraph of the article, I have reverted the recent edit that put it in the first paragraph as well. The first paragraph covers the important concept that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and that our head of state is HM the Queen. I am sure that readers can wait to get to the second paragraph to learn that Canada is a Commonwealth Realm. Let's not try to load up the intro paragraph with too much information, please. Ground Zero 16:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

four colonies when canada was formed

There seems to be an error regarding the Canada East and Canada West provinces. Nowhere does it state the two provinces were amalgamated into the province of Canada. Thus, on Confederation, four colonies cominbed to form the "Dominion of Canada", not three colonies.

They were merged in 1841. See Province of Canada for the details. Indefatigable 03:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i've added a neutrality box for the timed being due to some things that aren't certain, of which are listed above.

Neutrality

i've added a neutrality box for the timed being due to some things that aren't certain, of which are listed above, although it may not be needed, there is no harm in keeping it there temporarily. (Unsigned comment by 172.215.9.116).

Who are you & what issues do you want to discuss? Since you have only contributed to wikipedia for one day, there is no record of issues you have been involved in --JimWae 22:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the box. A neutrality box should mark the beginning of a discussion on POV issues. The person who placed it there gave no indication of his/her concerns. I'm happy to leave it there if he/she had provided some justification.

HistoryBA 23:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First inhabitants of Canada

Gabrielsimon has been reverting to the following statement in the History section:

Parts of Canada have been inhabited by aboriginal peoples (known as First Nations) 40,000 years (according to aboriginal traditions) or 10,000 years (according to the Bering Strait land bridge theory).

I've asked for a source for the "40,000 years." His response in his edit summary states: "read what i said, its according to native tradition, sot he source is cited." In a previous revert, he said: "all aborigional creation stories hold 'since the dawn of time' thus it is wordedthis way." So far nothing about "40,000 years." Gabriel, could you please tell us where the 40,000 comes from? Sunray 14:52, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I think what Sunray is looking for is not so much a source for the contention that "Canada has been inhabited for 40,000 years", but a source for the contention that "native tradition says that Canada has been inhabited for 40,000 years". There must be First Nations websites that recount the oral history of First Nations with reference to how long they have been here and how they got here. Providing a link or two to those sites would be very useful, Gabriel. Ground Zero 15:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

aborigional tradition states ?" from the dawn of time" and so i say as far back as is reasonable, as in just after the ice retreated from the region, which is 40,000 years. im trying to be reasonable. Gabrielsimon 15:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that that is a reasonable approach. I don't know if it is accurate, though. Please see this article on the ice age, which seems to say that the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago:

The Wisconsin or Wisconsinian was the last major advance of continental glaciers in North America. This glaciation is made of three glacial maximums (commonly called ice ages) separated by interglacial periods (such as the one we are living in). These ice ages are called (from oldest to youngest); Tahoe, Tenaya and Tioga. The Tahoe reached its maximum extent perhaps about 70,000 years ago while little is known about the Tenaya. The Tioga was the least severe and last of the Wisconsinan group and reached its greatest advance 20,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years before present (it started 30,000 years ago). At the height of glaciation the Bering land bridge permitted migration of mammals and humans to North America from Siberia.

Ground Zero 15:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

clovis poinmts found on the west coast date from over 10,000 years old. i can not find the article i saw that in, sorry. other then that, im not trying to discredit anyone, im simply putting down as close to the dawn of time as i can reasonably fimnd, tho there are native traditions that speak of times of great cold, it may be a reference to one or more ice ages.

Gabrielsimon 15:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)!

i was going to put a number like 400,000 becasue thats the generally accepted epoch of human begiunnnings ( as far as i understand it, in rerefernefe to homo sapiens) but i didnt want to cause trouble, though if the tradoitions are to be taken seriously, the native epople have been here since the beginning.

Gabrielsimon 15:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

also, there is evidance to debunk the bering straight theory... look aroubnd , its there.. ( i attned a lecture about this at mount allison ubniversity once...)

Gabrielsimon 15:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So why don't we say: "Aboriginal tradition holds that the First Peoples have inhabited parts of what is now called Canada since the dawn of time. Archeological records show that people have inhabited these lands for at least 10,000 years. Sunray 16:00, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

because thats not true, archaological records, as i have stated, have prooven that its far before... if you wanted to use the land bridge theory to say 10 k then fine, but as i siad, theres evidance to debunk that as well. ( im just ad at finding it, i have the lecture on tape) Gabrielsimon 16:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that we say "at least" does indeed make it true. I'm not sure we can be more precise than that. Look at what Ground Zero has said about the ice ages. There are no records that show an aboriginal presence prior to the ice ages. That doesn't completely rule out the possibility that there were people here, but it does make it unproven. Wikipedia policy does not permit original research in articles. So we can't just pull a number out of the hat. Nor is this article the place to debate various theories. Sunray 16:26, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

then the bering land bridhe theory should be stricken. its a fallacey dreamt up by people who wished not to feel so bvad about stealing lands, along the folloiwing lines of thought "if they werent here to begin with, then we really didnt take it from them" now then, research clovis points, please. youll see thier age preceeds 10k. Gabrielsimon 16:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have a reference to the Bering land bridge theory. It is now contentious and should be dealt with elsewhere. Perhaps you could look for information on Clovis points and bring it back here. Meanwhile, let's let others comment on whether we should use this statement:

"Aboriginal tradition holds that the First Peoples have inhabited parts of what is now called Canada since the dawn of time. Archeological records show that people have inhabited these lands for at least 10,000 years... Sunray 16:39, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

The Bering Land Bridge theory is not original research for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just reporting on it. Gabriel's 40,000 number does seem to be, unless he can provide a reference where someone else has suggested that 40,000 is consistent with oral history or tradition.
I don't think that his suggested line of thought explaining this theory works: the First Nations were here first regardless of how or when they got here, and "finders, keepers" is a basic legal principle, so the land is stolen whether the aboriginals came by land bridge before anyone else or were always here.
The existing Wikipedia article on the Ice Age discounts the posssibility of the presence of people here before 10,000 years. It, of course, is not authoritative, but it is there, so if we are going to contradict it here, we should have some other reference. While oral history tlaks about a great cold, if the Ice Age did last until 10,000 years ago, no-one could have lived here.
The "at least 10,000 years" that Sunray suggests does indicate that it could be longer. That statement in no way suggests that the First Nations were not here 40,000 years ago. Ground Zero 16:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And in conclusion, Mr. Simon, if you want something changed, please cite a source instead of saying "look it up". If you've already done the research, why not save us some time? If you don't have anything specific, why are you here? I give my full support to Sunray's version. Nickptar 16:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

didnt i say that clearly a moment ago " i attened a lecture on the subject" of one thing, and of the other, i know some tihings but its from BOOKS, and these books arent mine, so its hard to reference them. Gabrielsimon 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I've seen in "BOOKS" that people came here over the Bering Strait land bridge, but I can't reference them because I don't have them anymore. ;-) If you can't find the sources, tough, don't expect to be taken seriously. Check this out: [5] - it says "at least 10,000 years, and likely longer". Just as I suggest saying in the article. Or this: [6] - overview of different theories, including aboriginal traditions, and evidence for & against. It also says only "at least 15,000 years", with Clovis points only appearing 13,500 years ago. Nickptar 17:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support Sunray's version. It has the advantage of allowing for Gabriel's POV as well as scientific POVs, without asserting that any of them are correct. It has the disadvantage (from Gabriel's POV) of not emphasising the First Nations' position, but that's appropriately NPOV. It also has the disadvantage of emphasising the scientific POV because the "10,000" years is explicit, even if it's modified by "at least", but as the better-supported and more widely-accepted view, this mild emphasis is arguably appropriate. — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

July 7 reversion

I boldly reverted A. Lafontaine's edits which were clearly attempt to promote a particular point of view. Furthermore, they added considerable detail that would more appropriately be placed (if they were NPOV'd) into branch articles instead of this already-oversized overview article. If other editors believe that my reversion was too aggressive, please tell me so here. Ground Zero 7 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Reply to User:Kevintoronto (aka "Ground Zero")

Your reverting all of my edits in one shot is not in conformity with Wikipedia editing policy. Your labelling me as a contributor who inserts POV into articles belittles me, and in the manner stated is close to violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Worse though, your absolute claim was done unsubstantiated. I inserted facts only in this, as I have in every other article, but if you wish to challenge my contributions please follow Wikipedia policy and insert a POV notice into the article and then, as policy stipulates, give your reasons to support your POV claim on this discussion page. Thank you. I will boldly revert (your words) so that you may follow proper procedures. Thank you. A. Lafontaine 8 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

- Calling your edits POV is not a personal attack. I did not call you an editor who pushes POV, but only stated that the edits are POV. Furthermore, I invited discussion here from other editors and identified that the edits provided excessive detail for an overview article as being a main reason for the revert. You have not addressed these concerns. The whole tone of your edits were POV. You argue the point, rather than stating facts. I am looking for other editors to express their views on this so that it is not just you against me.
- I don't understand why you are making an issue of my former user name. I stopped using the Kevintoronto userid many months ago, and have posted a disclaimer on my new user page indicating that I formerly used that name. So there is no attempt to mislead people here.
- I have inserted the NPOV tag into the Politics section. Isee that you have also been accused of POV edit at Talk:Quebec.
- Fianlly, please provide a reference for your statement that "In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled such referenda unconstitutional." I do not recall this. Ground Zero 8 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

I do not recall the Supreme Court deciding such referenda were unconstitutional either. I do recall a decision that Quebec could not secede unilaterally. Unless a source is given promptly, I'd just delete it. --JimWae 2005 July 8 16:47 (UTC)

Reply to User:JimWae: It is in the actual judgment, notice of presentation of which was October 1997 and filed February 1998. QUOTE: Constitutional law -- Secession of province -- Unilateral secession -- Whether Quebec can secede unilaterally from Canada under Constitution.:[7]

Additional reply to User:Kevintoronto (aka "Ground Zero")

PLEASE NOTE:

cur) (last) 8 July 2005 15:00 Ground Zero (add back A. Lafontaine's unexplained deletion)
- YOUR EDIT REINSERTED: The federal sponsorship scandal has revived the Quebec sovereignty movement. This statement is close to, if not a fact, a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks as it is a total falsehood. See page history:

(cur) (last) 7 July 2005 17:08 A. Lafontaine (→History - Inserted Supreme Court ruling and removed text not relevant here and covered elsewhere: The federal sponsorship scandal has revived the Quebec sovereignty movement)

Please refrain from such conduct. Thank you. A. Lafontaine 8 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

OKay, so I overlooked the edit box summary. You had made a series of edits and I did not check all of the summaries. It this really such a big deal that you have to claim "personal attacks" again, especially when your first claim of personal attacks was completely unjustified? Please try to calm down. You might wwant to consider taking a break from editing if this bothers you so much. I mean, really, if someone can't say, "This edit is POV" without it being a personal attack, then 80% of the discussion on talk pages would be shut down, and there would be no way of addressing this issue.

Thank you for providing the reference that I requested. It does not, however, as far as I can tell, say that referenda like the 1980 and 1995 ones are unconstitutional. What it says is that unilateral secession is unconsitutional. (See, in particluar, para. 87 of the reference, under "(4) The Operation of the Constitutional Principles in the Secession Context".) A big difference. I will edit accordingly.

87 Although the Constitution does not itself address the use of a referendum procedure, and the results of a referendum have no direct role or legal effect in our constitutional scheme, a referendum undoubtedly may provide a democratic method of ascertaining the views of the electorate on important political questions on a particular occasion. The democratic principle identified above would demand that considerable weight be given to a clear expression by the people of Quebec of their will to secede from Canada, even though a referendum, in itself and without more, has no direct legal effect, and could not in itself bring about unilateral secession. Our political institutions are premised on the democratic principle, and so an expression of the democratic will of the people of a province carries weight, in that it would confer legitimacy on the efforts of the government of Quebec to initiate the Constitution's amendment process in order to secede by constitutional means. In this context, we refer to a "clear" majority as a qualitative evaluation. The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.

Ground Zero 8 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

With regard to the stuff about the sponsorship scandal, I saw you making a bunch of what I believe to be POV edits, and I thought this was one of them. On further reflection, I see your point that this does not belong here, and is covered in the Politics of Canada branch article, so I have removed it. Ground Zero 8 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

POV edit

Here is the edit that I believe to be POV, with the particularly POV parts in bold:

The 1982 patriation of the constitution and the procedures for amending it, came about in accordance with Constitutional tradition as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. After years of discussions on amending the British North America Act, in November 1981, following exhaustive meetings over a period of several days between Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, members from the Federal Cabinet, and the Premiers of each Canadian Province, a new Constitution for the nation was agreed to. Like the constitutional amending formula of the United States of America and other world democracies, unanimous approval of all provinces or states of the nation is not required. The delegation from the Province of Quebec, consisting of the Premier and selected cabinet officials, were all members of the Parti Québécois whose goal was to obtain Quebec independence from Canada and to make Quebec a separate nation. Although many attempts were made to accommodate the demands of the Quebec delegation, the agreement for a new constitution came about without the Quebec delegation's concurrence. As a result, some Quebec nationalists refer to the night when the agreement was reached as the "Night of the Long Knives."

The way this is written leads the reader, in my opinion, to the conclusion that Trudeau's ptriation of the constitution without Quebec's agreement was perfectly reasonable, and that the only reason that Quebec did not sign was that the PQ had no interest in doing so. I agree that the PQ has a vested interest in not signing, but it should also be noted that the Quebec Liberal Party supported the PQ in this. Furthermore, my opinion about the PQ should not be reflected in the article because I cannot substantiate it. I cannot show that Levesque was bargaining in bad faith as is suggested here. Bringing up the spearatist agenda of the PQ again (it does appear elsewhere in the article) is what leads the reader. e should let him or her draw his/her own conclusions instead of leading.

Furthermore, I think this is way too much detail to put into this article. A fuller discussion of this event should, and probably does, appear in otehr articles, like History of Canada.

The previous wording was much more suitable in length, although I think it merits a re-draft. This is what it said previously:

The patriation of the constitution, with procedures for amending it, was agreed to one night in November 1981. Quebec nationalists refer to that night as the Night of the Long Knives—because the agreement came about without the consent of Quebec's delegation.

Here is how I would re-phrase that (after deleting the lengthier description that A. Lafontaine added):

The federal government and the governments of nine provinces agreed to the patriation of the constitution, with procedures for amending it, at a meeting of First Ministers in November 1981. Quebec did not agree to the changes, and Quebec nationalists refer to that night as the Night of the Long Knives.

Ground Zero 8 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

Either of these shorter versions is preferable to what is there now. A longer version can go in the Politics or Constitution articles. DJ Clayworth 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

I agree with DJ Clayworth. Keep it brief. The in-depth stuff can go in the particular subject articles. This is an article about Canada not politics or constitution of. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Liberal Party of Quebec voiced disapproval to a new Constitution without Quebec's signature, but it never supported the demands the Separatist government's delegation made. And, exactly what should Trudeau and the other Premiers have done: Abandon the creation of our own new Constitution and Charter of Rights?Or, should they have given in to all the demands of the Separatists? These Constitutional conferences started under Lester Pearson and then John Robarts co-chaired the Task Force on Canadian Unity and then the "Confederation of Tommorrow" conferences. By 1982, it had gone for more than ten years. A. Lafontaine 8 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this with you because we are trying to write an encyclopaedia article, not revive old battles. The fact that you refer to "the Separatist government" indicates your point of view on this issue. Levesque was not there because he was a separatist. he was there as the Premier of the elected Government of Quebec, whether we like it or not. This issue is covered at Constitutional history of Canada, and does not belong in this already-exceeding-the-recommended-size-for-articles overview article. Ground Zero 8 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

present BOTH POVs in the branch article - I think it legitiamte to point out (there) that Quebec was holding out for unanimous consent & that such is very uncommon in any other constitutional process. NPOV does not mean no POV - rather that each be presented in a balanced way. Btw, I'd like to have more information about: what did Rene do when he found out what had happened? - and did he not have any idea the meeting was going on? is there any evidence he was purposely kept out? How many people & who were in the Kitchen? --JimWae 2005 July 8 18:47 (UTC)
- Yes, Night of the Long Knives (1981) could certainly use some expansion. I am pretty tired of the arguments about that night and Levesque and Trudeau and the other premiers intentions so I am not interested in doing it though. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

As to wheter Lévesque was trying to hold out or not, it might be good to remember that he was the instiguator of the sovereignty-association option and not a full on separatist. It is my understanding that he was not purposfully trying to derail the process but rather to appropriate for Québec the largest amount of autonomy he could get which would have gone a long toward achieving his goal of a much looser canadian confederation.

This is of course *my* understanding so don`t take this for gold, just some food for thought.--Marc pasquin 15:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Templates

I understand that everyone wants to have their favourite templates on the main page for Canada, but it would make the article look awful. The page would end up being a long list of templates:

Commonwealth Realms
Commonwealth of Nations
G8
NATO
Francophonie
APEC
OECD
OAS

in addition to the existing "provinces and territories" and "North America" templates. And heaven forbid there is ever a UN template. Can you imagine what that would look like? Ground Zero 19:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

See also what Wikipedia:WikiProject countries has to say on the issue:

"Footers: As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. "

Ground Zero 18:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

But the Americans have 3 mommy! It's quite obvious we'd have to edit every country page to have only "States/Provinces" and "other countries on continent" for this to be fair. I hope you are perpared to edit about 190 pages. --Stormscape 23:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"Fair"? Is there some sort of competition? Does one win with having more or less? If you want to change the other articles, go ahead but, for now, I'm content with making the Canada articles better not counting templates. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the Commonwealth Realms one should stay. I mean, Canada *is* one of the prime members of the Commonwealth.--Kross 17:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Astrotrain 15:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my longstanding objection to these templates. I also invite everyone to comment at Talk:United Kingdom and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries where a proposal has been developed to completely overhaul the template footer system. - SimonP 16:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Realms template is on the Monarchy in Canada page, which is linked from the Canada page in several places. The list of national holidays that was posted here duplicates what is on the Holidays in Canada page. The Canada article is not intended to cover everything about Canada. There are numerous branch articles to cover the vast amount of content about Canada that Wikipedia contains. Please see the discussions above where the issue of templates and length of the article have been covered before. Thanks. Ground Zero 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here, for your edification and amusement, is what the bottom of the Canada article would look like if all of the templates were added. (By the way, it has been very difficult to save this page. The server doesn't seem to like it.) Does anyone think that this would be a useful way of presenting information? Ground Zero 13:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You know, seeing all these templates makes me think that we are taking the wrong approach with organisational templates. It strikes me that we would be better to have a country-specific (Canada in this case) one which linked to the organisations which Canada belongs to, rather than organisational ones which link to Canada. Each organisation could still make use of the current templates of course. This would solve the multi template problem at the expense of requiring two links to get from one organisation member to another. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This proposal is very similar to one made last week by Doops that is currently being tested on the United Kingdom page. - SimonP 14:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

That approach looks very sensible to me. Ground Zero 15:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

And I thought that I was suggesting something new... Oh well, glad to see that others are already thinking along the same lines. Let's hope that the UK test works out. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I like it. Let's do it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've done a preliminary Canadian version at Template:Canada ties. - SimonP 18:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Following another attempt by User:Astrotrain to impose the Commonwealth Realms template without any agreement from other editors, I have put Simon's template up. I think it works well, and provides the links that anyone should need. Ground Zero 20:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It is missing any mention of the provinces. Readding Provinces template until "Canada Ties" template is completed. --Stormscape

Oops. I didn't mean to delete the provinces template. I think that has to stay in. I don't think that the provinces should go in the international ties template. Thanks for catching my mistake, Stormscape. Ground Zero 20:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Definitely a big improvement! Thanks, Simon et al. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)