Talk:Prorogation in Canada

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prorogation in Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Canada: Governments Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of other incidences of prorogation?

I'm noticing a slight bias in this article reflecting the media attention to the recent prorogation used by Stephen Harper. Perhaps less emphasis on the act of calling it and more on what prorogation actually does.

Also, previous uses of prorogation could also be added to show this isn't a 'new thing' or gimmick in parliament (the prorogation by Jean Chrétien during the sponsorship scandal rings a bell).

Gripen40k (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Gripen40k:

I have now added a History section. Thank you for your patience.

I also went to the article Sponsorship scandal and did a search for the words "prorogue" and "prorogaton" but my software did not find those words. If you can provide the info (preferably with references) then please do. Boyd Reimer (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

This article is bias towards the opposition and the negative aspects. Shouldn't Wikipedia be un-bias? Where are the aspects from the Government side and their supporters? This article needs to be corrected. --Aleeproject (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome additional content from all persuasions. Feel free to add content. Just now I added this reference (see below)^[1] which is from the organisation Fair Vote Canada, a strictly non-partisan organisation. It refers to the repeated instances of "unstable ... governments," saying that the 2009-2010 prorogation affair is an indication of instability and a symptom of an underlying problem.

Again, I welcome additional content from all persuasions.

^ Fair Vote Canada (January 5, 2010). "132 political scientists call for action on the democratic deficit". Fair Vote Canada. Retrieved 5 February 2010.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this should go under Bias, but in the section on the 2004 election, it was originally "Chrétien stepped down as prime minister in December of the following year, and the Liberal party *lost power* in the subsequent election of 2004." I changed it to add accuracy, "Chrétien stepped down as prime minister in December of the following year, and the Liberal party was *reduced to a minority government* in the subsequent election of 2004." Quotes and asterisk mine for clarity and emphasis 174.3.115.13 (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Tabled" versus "presented"

Table (parliamentary procedure) explains why the word 'tabled' is a tricky one. I've edited this article to use a more universal "presented".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this change will make the article more accessible to global audience. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original errors concerning Moore's views, now being reverted

There seems to have been two significant errors made - in good faith.

Error one

Moore does not call for reform. Instead he calls for legislatures to rebuke premiers and prime ministers for abusing Parliament. (Here's a direct quote from Moore: "If our premiers and prime ministers knew that legislatures would rebuke them for abusing Parliament...we would not have to worry about rogue prorogations." )

Yet in this edit (with the edit summary saying "rm subsections, trim redundant") his views are taken out of a section entitled "Historical evolution of the accountability for prorogation in Canada" and put into a section called "Calls for reform in the federal jurisdiction." Again, Moore does not call for reform. Instead, he calls for "rebuking" to take place. "Rebuking" is not the same as constitutional (rule changing) "reform."

Therefore I have recreated the original section, so that Moore is not misrepresented by Wikipedia. In this particular case, for the sake of accuracy, it is impossible to "rm subsections, trim redundant."

Error two

The second error is made (again good faith) in this edit (accompanied by the edit summary "c/e trim excess"):

Before that edit, the Wikipedia article stated this (see last section of edit):

"Hence, according to Moore, "no great web of new legislation or constitutional procedure is needed ...""

After that edit, the Wikipedia article stated the exact opposite, in the following quote (see middle section of edit):

"...Moore suggested new constitutional procedures..."

Therefore, I reverted the Wikipedia article back to the original meaning, so that Moore is not misrepresented by Wikipedia. In this particular case, for the sake of accuracy, it is impossible to "trim excess."

Please be careful. Thanks.

This extra material is worth the space it occupies because it increases the reader's understanding of the topic.

Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this single person's opinion doesn't deserve its own section. Secondly, I do see your point about misleading claims; I don't know how I came to have made them; it wasn't intentional. It would seem to me, however, that talking about no constitutional or procedural changes being necessary to hold premiers more accountable for prorogations would indeed be related to the section on calls for changes to the process of prorogation; I've hence returned that information to that section. I don't think there's much harm in including the thinking behind Moore's conclusion alongside it, but, to avoid any problem, I've shifted that particular material to the history section, to which it also relates. I hope this satisfies your concerns. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink to German Wikipedia

I do not see the connection between prorogation and "Legislaturperiode". The link should be deleted. --Dlugacz (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentarians

"In the Federal sphere, or Lieutenant Governor, in a province, summons parliamentarians...."

In most of the English-speaking world, the word "parliamentarian" has a completely different meaning that as it was used above. A parliamentarian is an expert on the rules of procedure for any kind of a legislative, congressional, or parliamentary body. Some of those rules could have been laid down by the consitution or laws that apply to that body (e.g. Federal laws, state laws, or provencial laws) and others could be the rules ("by-laws") established by the body itself for its procedures.
Hence, if you wish to confuse MOST of your readers, you can continue to use the word "parliamentarian", but I don't support that at all. In most locations, what you are calling "parliamentarians" are actually called Members of Parliament, Senators, Representatives, Congressmen, and Legislators. The latter four are especially prevelent in the United States, in Australia, and in the States of the United States and the six States of Australia, and the first one is the prevelent one in the United Kingdom. I do not know what are the terms in New Zealand, South Africa, etc., but I know that Canada has Senators. Does Canada also have Representatives, or Members of Parliament?
98.67.110.231 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity and accessibility

In an interest to increase the accessibility of pertinent information in this article. Why not a bullet list or table to help organize information? Keats87 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopædia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Prorogation in Canada. 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} 09:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prorogation in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link in History section

In the paragraph I just copy-edited, the link https://montrealgazette.com/news/Only+Canada+Harper+prorogation+Canadian+thing/2448571/story.html appears to be dead. The only archived copy I could find was on archive.is; is this site still blacklisted? I couldn't figure out where to go in the meta pages to answer the question myself 70.24.7.80 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Caption

The picture with the caption "A march in Vancouver against the second prorogation of the 40th Parliament" could use a little help. The number 40 appears no where in the article, so it's out of context and difficult to put into context. A simple date added to the caption would probably help put it back into context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.255.250 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Fair Vote Canada (January 5, 2010). "132 political scientists call for action on the democratic deficit". Fair Vote Canada. Retrieved 5 February 2010.

[1]