User talk:JimWae/Canada
Canada : Long Knives, Kitchen Accord
[edit]Hi. Actually I think both references to night of the long knives and the kitchen accord do not belong in the main article. This type of detail can go in the main article. We are already getting warnings that the Canada article exceeds 32 kb. Compare the Canada article to France and other countries and you will see how excessively detailed it is. Go ahead and remove both references and transfer the ideas to the main article on the Constitution. Who outside of Canada would have any interest in such arcane details? Give some thought to the people who want a quick overview of Canada.--BrentS 19:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Canada
[edit]I will keep an eye on the infobox as well. Vanman2010 is "a vandal for the Monarchist League"? So they're not all grannies drinking tea? Next you'll be telling me that the Monarchist League has a "Brute Force Committee". ;-) Ground Zero 17:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Canada
[edit]Jim, User:E Pluribus Anthony and I had a bit of a conversation about this on our talk pages. His last edit was a compromise that we worked out to address his valid point that what was there was too long and involved for an overview. Ground Zero 20:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- I had the convo with Anthony on our talk pages because I wanted to get his attention - I was afraid he might not read the Talk:Canada page. Let's move the discussion there. Ground Zero 20:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
---
Thanks for the discussion regarding this; it is appreciated. I'm still wondering about the provinces and territories characterisation in the overview. 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.). Whenever references, elsewhere, describe Canadian political sub/divisions (note the word)...
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/national/can_political_e/referencemap_image_view http://atlas.gc.ca/sitefrancais/english/maps/archives/5thedition/other/referencemaps/mcr4119 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm
they refer to it as having 10 provinces and 3 territories. While it is informative to note that they are 'federally administered,' why not just say they are federal territories? I would actually advocate for the following (for clarity):
Canada is a federation, comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories. OR Canada is a federation which has 10 provinces and 3 territories.
with links to the appropriate definitions. Remember: mentions of territorial administration appear again in the overview, and defined at length in the subarticles.
Thanks!
User:E Pluribus Anthony 20:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Fix?
[edit]I don't see you fixing anything, but I do see you reverting everything. Well, I'm out. And I did not appreciate the clumsy & repetitive language comment, it would not hurt you to be diplomatic. The soverign nation thing is nonesense, it is rarely used in other countries' leads; you deleted the Quebec referene. Area is more obscure than planet. Territories size versus population is noteworthy. I would have expected a more careful approach from yourself, so naturally I am dissapointed. Don't feel obliged to respond to this comment. El_C 16:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- One more thing, aside from my suggestion for you to read more countries' leads, I note that you didn't even keep very minor fixes I implemented, such as wikiing of the North Pole. Again, I find it unfortunate, but again don't feel obliged to respond to this comment. El_C 16:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Please refer to my response here. El_C 01:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Canada, again
[edit]I presume you have not read my response to your comments a few weeks ago. I must say, that they struck me as exhibiting in part a hostile undertone. I urge you to adopt a more collegial manner if you wish to respond to my reply (it's on my talk page), it seems doubtful though that you are interested in establishing any sort of a dialogue on this, and rather, entrenching yourself in your position. I, again, also urge you to read other country leads, esp. of the Commonwealth. I am not calling for unifmormity, but you have done little do demonstrate there is any confusion with regards to Canada being mistaken as ruled by the UK (at least significant enough to note it in the lead) – this point your hitherto response completly neglected to address. Would it be too much for me to request professional discourse from you, JimWae? El_C 03:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jim, could I have your opinion on the debate I am having with Vanman2010 on this? I like our version - with "parliamentary democracy" before "constitutional monarchy" better, but it sticks in my craw that the monarchists are again trying to turn this article into a platform for their quaint political ideas. If you tell me that I should let sleeping dogs lie, I'll do so. Thanks. Ground Zero 15:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your point against having const monarchy first was right on the mark. He certainly came here with a monarchist agenda, but presently parl. demo is first & I cannot see any way to deny that const monarchy is accurate in part. Your new point about the monarchy as an attempt to stay apolitical is also good -- Perhaps instead of political system it should be "form of government". It is also somewhat strage to have the detail start so far above the line in the info box - other states have used abbreviations, but that looks pretty ugly too --JimWae 15:25, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
If you look I do have parliamentary democracy first and then consituional monarchy. You could make a new section called form of government that would work. My point is it should be there whether some people believe it should or not. Also note I am not part of any monarchists league or any political organisation. My belief is that our ties with Britain and the Commonwealth are dimmininshing then you have people trying to figure out what a Canadian is or who we are as a country, this is why their is a so called idetity crisis today. Look at the culture section for Canada it just talks about the united states or some political policies that are trying to be enacted. The reason why we are a country in the first place was because we were loyal to the crown now that people seem to want to get rid of it what are we? Might as well set up political intergration with the united states because without the crown and the values we once had we are just americans. I am probebly going about these things the wrong way but I don't want my gravestone to say born in Canada died in United States of North America.Vanman2010 6:54, 9 June 2005 (UTC)
I do not think the solution to the Canadian identity crisis is to look to the UK either (instead of the US). Look to Canada - it is different from the US in many ways. Hereditary power, as in the monarchy, is an anachronism that just feeds the tabloids --JimWae 19:26, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Yes the figures are for may of 2005. I got them off a economists site so I updated the section. Vanman2010 6:54, 9 June 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but what time period are they for? Certainly not all of 2005. May 2004-Apr 2005? Jan-Dec 2004?--JimWae 18:05, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
January-May 2005 Vanman2010 11:54, 9 June 2005 (UTC)
Should it not say so on the page that it is for only part of a year - does this not make comparisons difficult unless every page listing a GDP is updated monthly? Where on Earth is today June 9th? Also, since I know we live less than 80 km apart, I know you responded at 11:54 PDT - not UTC --JimWae 19:28, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Yes guess you are right do you have any idea what the old values are then? "Where on Earth is today June 9th? Also, since I know we live less than 80 km apart, I know you responded at 11:54 PDT - not UTC" I have no idea what are you trying to say please explain. UTC is the universal time clock? So I am not sure what you mean. Vanman2010 8:11, 11 June 2005 (UTC)
Your dates in your signatures yesterday (Jun 10) were one day behind (Jun 9). They also had PDT times, not UTC times. Did you last respond at 1:11am PDT or 8:11 PDT. It is 11:57am PDT now --JimWae 18:57, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Canada Culture Z Endings
[edit]I never heard of Z being used I have always seen it as an S. Is this some kind of new spelling or special ending? Matthew Samuel Spurrell 8:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Vancouver Sun uses -ize instead of -ise. How long have you been in BC? -ize is the "American" spelling, -ise is the "British", Canadians use some British standards (honour) & some American. Some city's newspapers (maybe Victoria) are more "British". In this case -ize is also more phonetic--JimWae 17:24, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
I guess I am just an old timer then still spell things the old British way. I have been in B.C. for about 17 years and I have always seen it used with "ise". The papers used to spell things using american english but the people didn't like it and favoured the British way so most of them spell it that way now, but I guess Wikipedia is using the new american english? Anyway if my posts are using the old way of spelling words let me know so I can convert my posts to the american english one then. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Canada
[edit]There have been some recent edits to Canada that I believe are POV and add too much detail to the politics section. The editor who made them does not agree. Your views would be appreciated. Ground Zero 8 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
"Long Knives"
[edit]Hey, thanks for the corrections on "Knives", Typing "Premiers" and "provinces" over and over kind of messes your mind a bit...Habsfannova 20:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Happy to do it - any more info on what happened in kitchen & what elsewhere?--JimWae 21:08, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
Dominion
[edit]While I have just spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to get it through the exceedingly thick skulls of [to] a couple of editors that "Dominion of Canada" is not the legal or official name of the country, the sentence that you removed from Canada was not incorrect. It merely said that the country was referred to as the Dominion of Canada, which is certianly true. There are banknotes and birth certificates and proclamations and maps and the like that called it the Dominion. I think that deleting the phrase will just fan the flames of that very, very, very tedious dispute. Ground Zero | t 02:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Stand strong - the sentence implied reference was in BNA Act 1867 -- or was misleadingly ambiguous on the matter of where & when such reference was made. Do you think "and referred to in the Statute of Westminster 1931 as the 'Dominion of Canada'" belongs in the lead? --JimWae 02:42, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
Greetings! I hope you're well. I'd like to thank you for your feedback, input, and diligence throughout the ongoing, tumultuous (but no less enriching!) 'debate' regarding Canada's name. I – and others – undoubtedly appreciate it! I think (hope) this puppy can largely be put to bed, now. Right? :)
I realise it must have been difficult and frustrating to go back and forth – not to mention wade through a sea of ... text – on this (as we all have). My central dilemma was to balance user intepretation with authoritative sources and opinions on both sides of the issue; hence my 'indecision.' I hope my contributions/sources have been helpful as much to this issue and to you as vice versa. I'm sure, though, that what is there now is authoritative and superior to its earlier form and that everyone benefits from such dialogue – most importantly, visitors and users.
By the way, care to vote on this issue? :) In any event, thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 19:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Canada
[edit]Jim, the whole "dominion" thing started again when another editor (not Anthony) changed "formerly" to "formally". I edited this, and then User:E Pluribus Anthony and I had a conversation on our user pages, which, I know, is not the right way to handle things. I propose that we stop editing, and hash this out on Talk:Canada's name again. Regards, Ground Zero | t 20:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I see you have taken an interest in this article, or is it because it is the Canadian Collaboration of the Month? Regardless please see the talk page for a proposed structure to the article. I see you have doubts that the electoral district part of the political geography is valid. I was very liberal in the interpretation of the subject of "geography". I noticed the other Canadian "geography" articles focus heavily on geology, (physical geography), but little on human, political and economic geography. Let me know on the talk page how you envision the page being laid out. --maclean25 22:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)