Talk:Patriation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Patriation. 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

Patriation is not known to have been used in New Zealand.

Patriation is not known to have been used in New Zealand. As far as I am aware, it is solely a Canadian term. - (Aidan Work 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Its not a term with widespread currency in Canada. The standard term is still Repatriation. Patriation has been invented as a word, by people who resent the idea of "repatriation" with the Can. Const. Its completely stupid, because a citzen can be repatriated to a country they have never been in so we dont need a special word for it. Repatriation is the only valid term and Patriation unnatural IMHO 69.196.188.194 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The proper term is not repatriation, but patriation, since you cannot repatriate something that was never in the country in the first place. That is just common sense. BTW, the definition of REPATRIATE, at Merriam-Webster Online is "to restore or return to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship <repatriate prisoners of war>." I don't see anything there about going back to a country you had never inhabited before!

For you to call the use of the word "patriation" "stupid" is rather childish, to say the least. For example, the Historica-Dominion Institute uses the term "patriation" at the article: "The Patriation of the Constitution." At The Free Dictionary, the article "Patriation Reference" uses the same term. Also look here: Wikt:patriation. Your own opinion is just that, your own opinion. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Free Dictionary entry derives from Wikipedia itself. Look below its footnotes; it states it clearly. JohndanR (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Patriation is not known to have been used in New Zealand.

Patriation is not known to have been used in New Zealand. As far as I am aware, it is solely a Canadian term. - (Aidan Work 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Its not a term with widespread currency in Canada. The standard term is still Repatriation. Patriation has been invented as a word, by people who resent the idea of "repatriation" with the Can. Const. Its completely stupid, because a citzen can be repatriated to a country they have never been in so we dont need a special word for it. Repatriation is the only valid term and Patriation unnatural IMHO 69.196.188.194 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The proper term is not repatriation, but patriation, since you cannot repatriate something that was never in the country in the first place. That is just common sense. BTW, the definition of REPATRIATE, at Merriam-Webster Online is "to restore or return to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship <repatriate prisoners of war>." I don't see anything there about going back to a country you had never inhabited before!

For you to call the use of the word "patriation" "stupid" is rather childish, to say the least. For example, the Historica-Dominion Institute uses the term "patriation" at the article: "The Patriation of the Constitution." At The Free Dictionary, the article "Patriation Reference" uses the same term. Also look here: Wikt:patriation. Your own opinion is just that, your own opinion. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Free Dictionary entry derives from Wikipedia itself. Look below its footnotes; it states it clearly. JohndanR (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Kitchen Accord

I removed a bit of the Afterward of the Kitchen Accord article to help with the flow of the article. Should some of it be added back, or is it covered better in other articles?Habsfannova 04:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What did you remove? In my view, this article should be expanded quite a bit, particularly concerning the events of November-December 1981 and January 1982. There were numerous protests against the Canada Act, not just from Quebec sovereignists but from aboriginal groups, trade unions, etc. --Mathew5000 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That was awhile ago...just more of a transition thing than anything else, since the article was merged. Habsfan|t 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the difficulty in placing my edits. Can we talk on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Leeson (talk • contribs) 04:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding clause

This seems like a rather odd claim on the surface:

Until the Quebec Liberals came to power in 1985, every law passed in Quebec used the "Notwithstanding Clause."

Er, why? I'm aware of the notwithstanding clause being used on Bill 101, but surely there were all kinds of laws passed by the National Assembly in this time period which would not be in comflict with the Constitution and would therefore not require the use of the clause? Is the sentence alleging that the PQ was repeatedly using the clause simply out of spite? --Saforrest 20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement is accurate- see Peter Hogg's book. I agree probably not all the legislation was unconstitutional, but the notwithstanding clause was used anyway as a protest against patriation. It was also a blanket notwithstanding clause against sections 2 and 7-15, contradicting earlier expectations that if the notwithstanding clause is used specific sections of the Charter would have to be named. However, when asked the Supreme Court replied blanket notwithstanding clauses were within the right of the Quebec National Assembly to use. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

An online source for this fact is this Parliament of Canada research report. The relevant Supreme Court of Canada decision is here. Other relevant links: [1][2][3]--Mathew5000 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To clear up the use of the Notwithstanding clause, since its creation the clause has only been used 4 times. One of which, a labour law in Saskatchewan, was later ruled to be consistant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The clause has been used only 2 times in Quebec. One of which is, as it was already mentioned, Bill 101. The other use was on December 21, 1989. When the Premier of Quebec employed the clause in order to override freedom of expression, section 2b, and freedom of equality, section 15. The only other use was in Alberta when Prime Minister Ralph Klein used it to prevent the supreme court from allowing the marriage of same-sex individuals in Alberta. {*TEE DUB*} 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to the French page

Hey all - I deleted the link to the French page because the whole article on Patriation just links to the 'Night of the Long Knives' in French. Though this is certainly a subset of the patriation debate, unless it links to a proper article on the entire patriation process like on the English page it presents a decidedly Quebec nationalist bias. vckeating 01:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the interwiki from fr:Nuit des Longs Couteaux (Québec) to this article. Phe-bot (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Trudeau-Lévesque Bios?

This statement in the 'Conference' section seems suspect to me and needs a citation:

Both books agree that both men agreed to such a referendum, and both agree that Trudeau was, in effect, lying to Lévesque - though Trudeau is not quite so straightforward in saying it as Rene.

It accuses a former Prime Minister of Canada of lying, so I think we need a citation at least. If there is none, it ought to be deleted. I smell a hint of Quebec nationalism in it, as many sovereignists have a habit of referring to Lévesque lovingly by his first name (as is done in the quoted sentence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmcdonald (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Patriation is not known to have been used in New Zealand - again

I noticed this section above. In fact the word "patriation" was backformed from repatriation and is a Canadian term. I will change the page. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Topic of Article

Shouldn't this whole page just be about the word itself, and the who patriation of Canada's Constitution be its own page?

Mystic eye (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. The word doesn't exist outside of Canada's constitutional history. LastOthello (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Also this sentence doesn't make any sense

'The term "patriation" is based upon the word repatriation, because of people used of the word "repatriation" pointed out that the constitution could not return to Canada, as it was not formulated in Canada in the first place.'

I'm not sure what it should even say.

Mystic eye (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal Questions

In reading the section legal questions, Paul Romney's 1999 book is cited (and quoted), page 272 (the actual text is on 273), the section of the book (1940-1982) describes the situation prior to 1982, where UK laws did not have status in Canada, unless the Canadian goverment requested the UK legislature to "legislate" for Canada. The citation and source are valid, however have been used in a manner that leads one to interpert the situation as still current. The Canada Act/Constitution Act 1982 removes the "except at the request" provisions that existed. How can we fix this section? Thanks--UnQuébécois (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Additions/Subtractions

Glad to have some help on this! Thanks Miesianical

Just to get a start, I'd highly recommend junking the two paragraph Peckford debate. It can be handled in one line or less, and seems to really be a misunderstanding of when the changes were made. Every source I've consulted has the Kitchen Accord and then working from NL's draft.

That and there seems to be a jumble of after effect. I'll add more concerns as I get a chance. Knoper (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Can also say Bastien has some great info on the Queen and the response on the UK side. Just seeing where to add them. Knoper (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

First and foremost, info needs to be sourced. Much of what you added before I found had no supporting source, so, I removed it. Same with the more recent additions like "Desparate to avoid an empty chair, emissaries of the provinces convinced Lévesque to stay."

Perhaps the paragraphs on Peckford's and Leeson's words can be compacted. However, that is not the same as removing them. They're relevant and sourced. Ditto for the "merde" bit and the Queen's position on Meech Lake (being rooted in the results of the patriation effort). Those, however, could probably be made into notes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There should be much more liberal use of notes, so that's a good idea. The info I added is from Bastien, will cite that in a bit. Should get rid of some of those dead links as well. Knoper (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Newfoundland/Kitchen dispute

I've been looking in to the Newfoundland/ dispute regarding the Kitchen Accord, and the sources I have basically both sides talking past each other in the newspaper articles cited: Peckford is right about the written deal being based off of NLs draft, however, the structure of the compromise itself was as the story is told. OK if I expunge it and replace it? Knoper (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to be clear here on what you want to change in the article. Your recent edits, while in good faith, messed up the article and did seem to contain unsourced additions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Patriation. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 23:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Expansion proposal

I've been reviewing some period literature (Valpy's book is excellent), and would propose some minor reworking. Just want to get an OK before I begin (and not accidentally think I'm working on a sandbox article, like last time):

-Some increased coverage of the September 1981 meetings

-A section on Britain (Federal legal position, Thatcher government promises to introduce to Westminster, Trudeau expands promise too far in media, Kershaw Report, provincial lobbying, Ambassador Ford, held up by concerns about scheduling/filibustering)

-"Patriation Reference" expanded to include a brief paragraph discussing the three lower court rulings(It definitely needs to be clarified that the Manitoba Court of Appeal's statement is in dissent, not the ruling)

-Reworking "Kitchen Accord", again, I'll try and moot some wording before changing, but the basic story does basically allow for both author's viewpoints (general compromise in kitchen kinda matches what NL was proposing, bureaucrats hijack NL proposal to put it all in).

-Quebec's reaction should be given a full paragraph to explain (lots of embarassment, etc.)

-Legal conseqeunces should have both Westminster votes, Aboriginal loss in

(phew) Have I missed anything? Any ideas? Knoper (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There's little wrong with adding information so long as one does so in conformance with WP:NPOV, part of which is WP:WEIGHT. In other words, the level of detail should be consistent across the article. Of course, it also has to be verifiable, as well. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What kind of expert is needed? And why?

On another Talk page, for Canada, @User:Moxy said that only scholarly sources are acceptable.

There seem to be a lot of sources in Patriation that are acceptable to Wikipedia!

What counts as a reliable source Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

This article needs some real help...most sources to goverment websites for starters. The lead uses word like decided, but, however etc.. this does not potray any confidence in the text that follows. This is a topic covered by many many historians. I will compile some sources we can use over the next few days.--Moxy (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. @Moxy deleted content I had added and then reverted himself.

   Revision as of 21:17, 13 February 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) Moxy (Revert self....was not aware same person here...don't want to debate the merits of goverment sources AL over. Will just fix all this next week.)

However, it is time to debate sources and whether Wikipedia considers only scholarly sources to be suitable. Hopefully, an expert from Project Canada will get involved and will confirm that "respectable" magazine and newspaper articles - and Government of Canada publications - are suitable sources. And hopefully, from then on, any content that I add to any article about Canada will not automatically be reverted. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Peter. As per WP:RS WP:V, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources .. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available". Obviously, academic publications may be out of date, and official government publications and reliable news media are considered reliable sources here. However, the best sources are the most reliable and of the highest quality, which are invariably written by leading experts in the field and published by reliable and respected peer-reviewed institutions. Comparatively speaking sources of such quality are rare. That being said, when available they should be used and they take precedence over lower quality sources. For example, if we have a legal article within a law journal citing a Supreme Court of Canada case, as well as an essay written by the Chief Justice of Canada, these two sources together would provide a much better reference than a Huffington Post new article or a Government of Canada web page.

What I believe Moxy is trying to impress upon is that he believes his opinion is based on a more in depth reading of a variety of high quality sources, and lower quality sources that often oversimplify, confuse, or are just plain wrong (often due to the fact that they are written by an individual non-expert) do not trump high quality sources.

While BRD applies, it is generally considered poor taste and improper to removed verifiably sourced information, with modifying the text and replacing a poor quality source with a supporting high quality source(s) in its stead being the way to proceed instead. Thus likely explaining the revert. Hope this helps. trackratte (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply @trackratte This discussion really should be on other Canada-related articles where Moxy has deleted my sourced content, claiming that only scholarly journal sources can be used to make revision to existing text. I wish you were right and Moxy was planning to include the content I had added with different sources, revised as necessary. But based on past experience, he simply reverts all content that I had added.Peter K Burian (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)