Jump to content

Talk:Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BCapp (talk | contribs) at 03:32, 15 November 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCanada FA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Featured articleCanada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
"WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:WPCleaner. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of November 2, 2024

What's new?

Articles for deletion

  • 02 Jan 2025 – Portuguese Newfoundland (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Warrenmck (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
  • 31 Dec 2024 – People's Republic of Zhongtai (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Yue (t · c) was closed as delete by Schützenpanzer (t · c) on 31 Dec 2024; see discussion (3 participants)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)

Main polities

Main article: Country

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

Shortcut
See also: WP:Lead section
For lead length see, #Size
Opening paragraphs
Further information: MOS:INTRO

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.

First sentence
Further information: MOS:FIRST

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English.

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER.

Example:

checkY Sweden,[a] formally the Kingdom of Sweden,[b] is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
☒N Sweden,(Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ) formally the Kingdom of Sweden,(Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ) is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.

Detail, duplication and tangible information
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. The lead prose should provide clear, relevant information through links to relevant sub-articles about the country an relevant terms, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

Example:

checkY A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.
☒N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Too much detail
Shortcut

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Prose should provide clear, relevant information and links to relevant sub-articles about the country, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

checkY Corruption in Liberia is endemic at every level of society, making it one of the most politically corrupt nations.
☒N Liberia scored a 3.3 on a scale from 10 (highly clean) to 0 (highly corrupt) on the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index.


Comparison table of section sizes in country articles as a percentage of article size. Click image for latest data.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links
Size
Graphic showing article quality, size, contentiousness, protection, and vital level. Click for live data.
Shortcut
Main pages: Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style § Article size
Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually 250 to 400 words as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
  • Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
  • Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,834 words) "readable prose size"
  • Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
  • Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
  • East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8,152 words) "readable prose size"
  • Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9,092 words) "readable prose size"
  • New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,761 words) "readable prose size"
  • Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,178 words) "readable prose size"
Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles should be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE, WP:HATNOTERULES, WP:HATLENGTH for more recommended hatnote usages.

checkY== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

☒N== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

See also: Petroleum industry in Canada and Agriculture in Canada

Further information: Economic history of Canada and Early Canadian banking system

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information.

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. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history)
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Notes

  1. ^ Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ; Finnish: Ruotsi; Meänkieli: Ruotti; Northern Sami: Ruoŧŧa; Lule Sami: Svierik; Pite Sami: Sverji; Ume Sami: Sverje; Southern Sami: Sveerje or Svöörje; Yiddish: שוועדן, romanized: Shvedn; Scandoromani: Svedikko; Kalo Finnish Romani: Sveittiko.
  2. ^ Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ

This article is hereby recognized as a recipient of the FCGA Award.

Archive

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

Lead proposals

Template:RFChist Template:RFClang

So that they're collected in one place and can be discussed individually:

To be fair, I'm including all set out above, and in the order in which they were proposed. Forgive me if I've missed any, and/or please add more if thought of. Hopefully, via a process of elimination, we can decide on one that is acceptable. --G2bambino 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
4 2 0 4

Close of vote
Result: Acceptable. --G2bambino 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
2 2 0 4

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
4 0 0 5

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
0 0 0 8

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

  • In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a self-governing dominion.
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
0 0 2 4

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
0 1 1 4

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

  • In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada.
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
2 1 0 3

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!


Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
5 1 0 4

Close of vote
Result: Acceptable. --G2bambino 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

This is borrowed from the preamble of the 1867 act, which refers to it being under the Crown of the UK. Anyhow, we can instead paraphrase, and render in upper case only those words for which it is required. Quizimodo 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
2 0 1 4

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

This document remains part-and-parcel of the 1982 act. Has anyone considered (gee) paraphrasing the quoted constitutional text, merely rendering terms in lower case instead while still linking to the constitution; so:
... colonies were 'federally united into one dominion' of the British Empire named Canada.[5]
Editors who are bound to rejecting notions due solely due to capitalisation seem rather simplistic. Quizimodo 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this imprecise? Quizimodo 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is no more or less florid that other proposals, with parentheticals indicating options (e.g., British Empire OR United Kingdom, not both). And there are quite a few things more fetid on this talk page than this proposal. Quizimodo 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Quizimodo 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
1 1 0 4

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

  • In 1867, Confederation united three colonies in federation to form the Dominion of Canada and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America.
You find number 11 syntactically-challenged but 8, 9, and 10 are fine? I see it the opposite way. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, #11 unclearly incorporates two important but rather independent notions -- the entity created in 1867 AND the process towards full independence -- into one sentence, whereas the current edition and #8-10 deal with them separately (and IMO better). In this instance, if given the option between including cited text (from the constitution, no less) and not, I choose the former. Quizimodo 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I formed #11 to avoid talking about the autonomy, which I agree belongs in another sentence. This version only speaks of the uniting of BNA colonies. The reason, I thought, you and G2bambino were desiring the "dominion" word was to speak of the degree of autonomy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat -- to be clearer: I believe notions regarding the country's founding in 1867 AND the growth and autonomy of the country can be stated more clearly in separate sentences, as is now the case. And this proposed sentence is rather imprecise: the process of uniting BNA colonies began well before 1867 -- its their union into a federal dominion that began in 1867. Quizimodo 18:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
1 1 0 5

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

  • In 1867, Canada was founded when three colonies united to form a semi-autonomous federation and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America.
  • Oppose As per my comment above, this proposal equally leaves the reader unsure as to what type of federation Canada became, and potentially misleads him or her into believing there was no such thing as "Canada" before 1867. --G2bambino 16:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What type of federation did it become? And don't say dominion. I added semi-autonomous to the word federation because that's what I thought you were looking for. I'd rather leave the autonomy issue to the following sentence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One with greater self-governing abilities (militia, internal affairs, external affairs (to an extent), etc.) than the other colonies of the British Empire; more akin to a country than previously, though still subordinate to an imperial government. Semi-autonomous does cover this, but Canada had a certain, increasing amount of self-autonomy from the early 1800s right up to 1982. 1867 was merely a step in that scale of self-autonomy, not the beginninig of it, as far as I know. --G2bambino 18:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I would like to put that in the following sentence A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom moved Canada towards statehood and culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament, which I dislike, and leave this sentence as uniting colonies into a new federation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence is fine, but it could be attached to any of the proposals set out here. --G2bambino 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
0 0 1 5

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

13

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

  • In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada.
  • With that amendment I would change from oppose to support. Should we make that option #18 or would the amendment be friendly to all who have already voted in favour? Screw it, what's one more option when we have this many already. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
4 1 0 4

Close of vote
Result: Acceptable. --G2bambino 16:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

14

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

  • In 1867, Confederation united Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a federation, with each becoming a province.
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
0 0 0 5

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

15

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
0 0 1 5

Close of vote
Result: Opposed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

16

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
0 0 0 6

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

17

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
0 1 1 3

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 16:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

18

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

Insufficient; this is also in the (substandard) original edition, and it makes no reference to the sort of federal entity (i.e., a dominion) per the constitution that was produced upon Confederation. Anyhow, there are succinct and clearer options that better allow us to have our cake and eat it too -- this is just icing. Quizimodo 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I see you saying, then, is that this sentence should say that Canada was still under the British Crown. I suppose we could find a way to do that. The next paragraph does state, however, that Canada is "a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state". DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JimWae wrote:
"the ONLY change in status vis-a-vis the UK in 1867 was there was 1 colony where before there were 3. Dominion did not really mean anything special until some decades afterwards. In 1867, it was mostly just a euphemism for "colony of a kingdom" " --JimWae 23:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim ... that is absolute crap.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JimWae, your use of sarcasm and downright avoidance, are what I personally find frustrating about you. I feel that you do not listen. Frankly, I find you one "royal pain in the ass".
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim ... all I ask is that you speak plainly.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ONLY change in status vis-a-vis the UK in 1867 was there was 1 colony where before there were 3. Dominion did not really mean anything special until some decades afterwards. In 1867, it was mostly just a euphemism for "colony of a kingdom" --JimWae 23:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, if that is the case then why were other colonies of the Empire not referred to as Dominions at that time? Just Canada, at first, and then those colonies that attained "Dominion status" afterwards. --G2bambino 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • because Canada wanted a change within itself, AND the UK was reluctant to annoy the US (Monroe Doctrine, Civil War, etc), and the UK did not yet want Canadians to think they were a "kingdom in their own right". The next "dominion" was either Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, or Dominion of NZ in 1907, no? "Dominion" had no special meaning until the various places called dominions met together in common cause for greater independence. --JimWae 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JimWae, you are incorrect. The Dominion(s) were set-up as independent countries within the British Empire. The only limitations were (1). annulement, and (2). reservation. If forced to explain this TO YOU ... I will go through it IOTA-by-IOTA. I will not let you mis-represent and ignore the historical truths of the founding of the Dominions (i.e., independent countries within the British Empire).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only did the British not want to call Canada an independent kingdom, Canadians woudn't have wanted it. A Canadian in 1867 would have been horified if you told them that they were now a subject of the Queen of Canada rather than the Queen of Britain. Even after the Statute of Westminster many Canadians still thought of themselves as somewhat British. The idea of Canada as being under a completely seperate crown did not arise until Elizabeth II's reign. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Arctic Gnome. "A federation of four provinces?" is evasive. A Republic? An Empire? A Kingdom? A Principality? A Duchy? A Marche? An Earldom? A County? An Estate? ... or how about a bloody Baliwick? Oh yes ... the Baliwick of Canada. ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
4 0 0 2

Close of vote
Result: Acceptable. --G2bambino 16:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

19

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

  • In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form the present Canadian federation, starting out as four provinces.
Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
2 0 0 3

Close of vote
Result: Opposed. --G2bambino 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

20

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vote Closed!

--- Or similar; this version has the advantage of linking to the term, and thereby including what is arguably an important outcome/notion of Confederation, while not explicitly exhibiting this 'contentious' term (to mollify naysayers), and largely resembles the current version. For simpler comprehension, replace 'polity' with 'entity' or similar. Note that the following sentence, as now, would expand upon Canada's burgeoning autonomy.

Support Weak support Weak oppose Oppose
2 0 1 1

Close of vote
Result: Acceptable. --G2bambino 17:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General comments

  • Comment: I have refrained from voting until now, but would like to object that this poll seems ridiculous and absurd. Having seventeen different versions to vote on takes far too much time and resembles a diversionary tactic more than anything. I'm sure that there are others who, while they may have opinions on the subject of dominion or not (in the lead), did not feel that voting on seventeen different proposals to be an effective use of time. There was essentially one issue on the table (remove dominion from the lead) and putting forward a dog's breakfast of options to vote on just muddies the waters.
If there is to be a vote or poll to be considered valid, it should be simplified to a simple yes/no.--Gregalton 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's been done; about four times now. Any other suggestions? --G2bambino 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which essentially means that the fact that it's still being discussed essentially boils down to "I didn't get what I wanted the first time, so I'm just going to raise it again until I've gotten my way, consensus be damned." That approach isn't looked kindly upon by Wikipedia. Bearcat 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: this would indeed seem to apply to the instigator of this morass. Quizimodo 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bearcat. Let us look up the definition of the word consensus,
consensus.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
I have "been at this" particular issue for YEARS. Yes, I have. This, in my opinion, is the first time that this issue has been thoroughly sussed-out. Thank you everyone. No matter what the result ... "there has finally been a fair-day-in-court" on this one.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" does not mean that everybody has to agree before any solution is implemented. It means that once a discussion has been hashed out for the appropriate length of time, everybody has to agree to abide by the majority decision whether they personally like it or not. Bearcat 00:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bearcat. As per your view on what consensus means, you and I actually agree (on the definition, that is!). As per if the full-process has actually occured ... I believe, I feel, that it is actually happenning NOW (instead of before, when it felt like a "railroad-job" to me).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the voting goes, what I see (with perhaps only 1 or 2 exceptions) is that those who want dominion in the lede oppose every proposal that does not have it in the lede, and those opposed to it in the lede oppose every proposal that includes it. And yes, 17 alternatives obscure the central issue here. There are some editors who vigorously object to the inclusion of "dominion" (the article existed for years without it being included in the lede) & have presented their reasons. Those wanting "dominion" in have not addressed the issue of what meaningfulness (other than its being something of a legal remnant) it is supposed to add to the lede. --JimWae 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I emphasize again that it was not conferring dominion status that effected any difference in 1867. What changed from the UK perspective was that where there had been 3 colonies, there was now just one. From the Canadian perspective, there was now an additional level of self-government - the relationship with the BRITISH crown did not effectively change, it was just one step removed. 1> Dominion status does not signify any real change in status, 2> its meaning has changed since 1867, 3> it has been abandoned by Canadian governments & by the monarchy, and 4> introducing it in the lede raises more issues than are ever answered in the article. It does not have significant informational value. It is a relic of paternalism & colonialism, and it is something of an embarassment to explain "no it doesn't really mean that Canada is still a colony of the UK". It is incongruous to me that anyone would find it something to be proud of. The title dominion may still apply because it is a historic remnant/relic/anachronism that has not yet been updated. Conferring the title in 1867 did not in any way change the relationship of "Canada" to the UK & the UK crown. Canada was still a colony of the UK for decades after 1867 - so mentioning it in lede does not add any information about what happened in 1867.--JimWae 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Voting on 17 alternatives suggests future conflicts over whether further editing of that sentence will be "allowed", whereas voting on the central issue would not "fossilize" that part of the lede. I find I now prefer an alternative not even there -Something like: In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form the present Canadian federation, starting out as four provinces. (this adds a significant part of the history [4 provinces] and clarifies why "three" is even included here ) --JimWae 19:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is rather a by-product of polls that were launched by editors (at least initially) with no discourse or input from the other side, so of course they are contestable and mean little and have resulted in this multivariant poll. Quizimodo 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After a vote on the core issue, there could then be an opportunity for those who lose to suggest what they could live with. Up until now, there has been no discussion of how one side is going to attempt to accomodate the other. Nothing has been done to build a consensus, all that has happened (in writing) is that opposing viewpoints have been hardened. I hope that some better understanding of the opposing viewpoint has taken place - even if not acknowledged (in writing) --JimWae 19:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with JimWae. Simple yes/no votes will always end in a stalemate, this many-optioned poll is now the best option we have of finding something that most people can live with. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the point of the above poll? The option most supported is the one most people can live with. Frankly, I don't care where this goes after tomorrow. I'll tally the results to see which is the most popular, and let the rest of you fight it out. Someone aptly predicted this would be decided by fatigue rather than consensus; it seems they may well have forseen correctly. --G2bambino 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with G2. And I believe you did propose a run-off at some point (i.e., selecting a few with the most support initially, and then doing it again), only to have it dismissed or lost amidst other comments on the talk page. Quizimodo 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if there's a couple that are close, I thought they could be pulled out for more detailed analysis. I'm really just hoping to weed out the excess. --G2bambino 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:Consensus says, a poll is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, we're on the right track. --G2bambino 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}
Please restore the link to Sports in Canada in the {{main}} template at the top of the Canada#Culture section. It should look like this:

Main articles: Culture of Canada and Sports in Canada

It used to be there, and without it, there is no link to this 2nd tier sub-article (sports are not included in the Culture of Canada article). Thanks, heqs ·:. 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this request. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to Sport in Canada and National symbols of Canada. It appears someone had tried to create separate sections for Sport and Symbols, but those sections were later deleted, and links were not restored to the culture section. Mindmatrix 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I don't think the link to the symbols article is needed, as it's one of the sub-topics covered in the culture article. heqs ·:. 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled the editprotected request here because it appears to be fulfilled. Nihiltres(t.l) 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Royal Anthem

The Royal Anthem for all member states of the Common Wealth and the National Anthem for the United Kingdom Is "God Save the King" and not "God save the Queen" as stated.

The name of the Anthem, contrary to popular opinion does not change as the gender of the Monarch of the Common Wealth of Nations does. Sammy Jay 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof of this? GoodDay 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information from 10 Downing street official website states the name of the Anthem as "God Save the King" [7]. Sammy Jay 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, during E2's reign, people have been singing the anthem wrong? GoodDay 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what that means. The name of the Anthem has no bearing on the words sung in it. As the gender of the Monarch changes the words in the song switched between "King" during times of a male Monarch and "Queen" during times of a female Monarch. During HRH Queen Elizabeth 2's reign the name of the anthem has remained "God Save the King" although the word King has been changed to Queen in the "lyrics". I do hope no one has been singing the anthem wrong. Sammy Jay 00:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just being silly. GoodDay 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We still need a definitive source for this (I'm dubious about taking the word of someone who refers the the Queen as "HRH Queen Elizabeth 2"). --G2bambino 15:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a definitive source supporting the statement that Canada's Royal Anthem is "God Save the Queen". I'm not sure that it is relevant to this article what the name of the Royal Anthem of the United Kingdom is. (Just as, by analogy, the Monarchy in Canada is headed by the Queen of Canada; apparently she has other titles in other places, but they are not relevant to this article.) - Eron Talk 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I pointed out that link somewhere else; this royal anthem discussion seems to be going on simultaneously on a number of pages, though I think it's gelling at Talk:God Save the Queen. --G2bambino 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all realms have this "Royal anthem"

  • The fore-mentioned statement is not true actually.

It is true that Queen Elizabeth is a monarch of many "crowns". E.g. she's pretty much like a executive board member that serves on several different executive boards. In that case, for example a judgement or ruling in one realm really doesn't have any weight automatically in any other realms. So based on that, those crowns in theory do not spill over from one realm to the next.

Example: In Barbados she is styled "The Queen of Barbados". In Canada she isn't styled the "Queen of Barbados" and the "Queen of Canada" as far as Canada's recognition-- she is just styled "The Queen of Canada". The fact of the matter is the Canadian monarch or "crown" has the provision for a "Royal Anthem" as outlined as being one of the "Symbols of Canada" (here 1, here 2) but not all Commonwealth realms have a "Royal Anthem." as part of their monarch's role, duties and provisions.

For example. Canada's [guidelines and practice] it is understood that "God Save The Queen" be played in her(or heirs) presence(or GG). (quote) (here) Playing of "God Save The Queen" at events

"God Save The Queen" has no legal status in Canada, although it is considered as the royal anthem, to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors. (/end quote)

Barbados' and Saint Lucia's [guidelines and practice] state's even in her presence or the G.G.'s presence the Barbados or Saint Lucian anthems will still be played instead.

(http://www.barbados.gov.bb/bdoscodeitq.htm here 1) (quote) B. THE NATIONAL ANTHEM The National Anthem shall be played -

(a) for the purposes of a salute on ceremonial or official occasions, on the arrival and departure of 

 (i) the Governor General.
 (ii) the Sovereign or a member of the Royal family,
 (iii) a foreign Sovereign, Head of State or member of a reigning foreign

imperial or Royal Family, 

 (iv) Governors-General of Independent Commonwealth countries.
 (v) Governors of the Associated States, and
 (vi) Governors, High Commissioners of Officers administering the Government

of a dependent territory within the Commonwealth

(b) at the beginning of all public performances in a cinema house.

3. The National Anthem may be played (a) at the completion of any public function, or (b) when toasts are proposed at official functions.

4. The National Anthem should not be parodied in verse or in song neither should it be played in any tempo other than that officially recognises (eighty-eight crochets to the minute). Particularly, the tune should not be used as a dance number or for the purposes of advertisement. 5. When more than one anthem is played the Barbados anthem should be played last. (/end quote)

(http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/saint_lucia/national_anthem/national_anthem_of_saint_lucia.htm here 2) (quote) Protocol for the National Anthem 

  1. Whenever the National Anthem is played, all civilians present should stand at attention, men with bared heads.  Uniformed persons should act in accordance with instructions.
  2. All three verses of the National Anthem will be sung.  Normally one verse will be played.  It shall consist of the first twelve bars of the anthem unless otherwise stated.
  3.
   The National Anthem shall be played:-
    a. for the purposes of a salute on ceremonial or official occasions, on arrival and departure of:
     i. the Governor-General
     ii. the Sovereign or a member of the Royal Family
     iii. a foreign Sovereign, Head of State, or member of a reigning foreign Imperial or Royal Family
     iv. Governor-General of Independent Commonwealth countries
     v. Governors of the OECS States
     vi. Governors, High Commissioners or Officers administering the Government of a dependent territory within the commonwealth,

and 

    b. at the beginning of all public performances in a cinema house or other public building. 
 4.

The National Anthem may be played:- 

    a. at the completion of any public function, or
    b. when toasts are proposed at official functions 
 5. The National Anthem should not be parodied in verse or in song, neither should it be played in any tempo other than that officially recognised.  In particular, the tune should not be used as a dance number or for the purposes of advertisement.
 6. When more than one anthem is played, the Saint Lucia anthem should be played last.

(/end quote)

Further see rules covering the Canadian national anthem. It has been assumed this "Royal anthem" stands in all countries but not all countries play a "Royal anthem" some may play the British national anthem as when any diplomat visits but it doesn't seem she or her heirs or representative are given special treatment in the form of a "Royal Anthem". CaribDigita 01:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although the issue of the name of the Anthem still remains, "God Save the King" is the official name. [8]

Sammy Jay 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the name of the Royal Anthem of the United Kingdom. However, this suggests that the name of the Royal Anthem of Canada is "God Save the Queen". - Eron Talk 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think common sense should prevail, and should (god forbid) Her Majesty ever discontinue her service as our Sovereign Lady, the Royal Anthem's name should be modified according to the gender of her successor. I think this issue about the name of the anthem has arisen before on God Save the Queen. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Anthem at any particular time is entitled as to the reigning monarch. Right now, that is God Save the Queen. In 1936, it was God Save the King. When referring to the anthem over all time, it is God Save the King, since that is the more common gender. The article should be entitled as it is used now and changed if, God forbid, it is necessary to do so. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A minor change

I'd do this myself, but considering it's protected, that's not exactly possible. Anyways, the population density in the infobox and the population density under the headline Geography and climate differ. Please correct this. --Super Martyo Brother 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's relative geographic size

The article mentions Canada as the second largest (in land area) to Russia. As "Russia" has been broken up into several smaller soviet nations, would that not make us the largest?

Musesshadow 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Canada was smaller than the ex-USSR, which broke up. The largest resulting nation is Russia, which is still way larger than Canada.--Ramdrake 12:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See List of countries and outlying territories by total area for the details. - Eron Talk 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: naming controversy

If you want to settle the dispute over whether Canada is a dominion,federation,or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps, you should actually go as far as calling a government office to find out and confirm what the country's official name and status is. It might have to get to that point. Adamv88 18:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute over what the country's name is. There is a dispute over how to describe what the country became, and I don't know of any technology that allows one to call backwards through time. --G2bambino 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"There's no dispute over what the country's name is. There is a dispute over how to describe what the country became"

Hence, I said they should ask about the country's official name and status. Adamv88 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that there's no dispute over Canada being (presently) a Dominion (it isn't), only how to describe what it became (past tense). --G2bambino 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino, Canada is still a Dominion. Clause 3 of the British North America Act 1867 stated explicitly that Canada is a Dominion, and this clause has NEVER BEEN REPEALED. Therefore, Canada is still a Dominion.

Why do people NOT GET this?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 75.162.0.146. The long-form name is the Dominion of Canada and its status is a Dominion within the British Commonwealth of Nations.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dominion (small "d") but not a Dominion (capital "d"). There is no longer a British Commonwealth of Nations, only a Commonwealth of Nations. --G2bambino 04:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is a CAPITOL "D" ... Dominion. The lack of usage of "British Commonwealth of Nations", does not constitute an abolishment of the term British. G2bambino, you and I, may be Constitutional-Monarchists, but we have very different interpretations on a great many things ... indeed.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, small "d" dominion, as in a territory under a sovereign's authority, not capital "d" Dominion, as in a semi-autonomous entity of the British Empire (and, all together a separate issue to whether ot not it's called the "Dominion of Canada"). Further, you may choose to use the word "British" before "Commonwealth of Nations," but the Commonwealth of Nations itself calls itself the "Commonwealth of Nations." --G2bambino 05:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino, LEGAL DOCUMENTS use the term Dominion (e.g., the British North America Acts), and the term British Commonwealth of Nations (e.g., the Statute of Westminster 1931). Since NONE of the BNA Acts (1867-1975), and the Statute of Westminster 1931 have been REPEALED ... these LEGAL TERMS (i.e., Dominion, British Commonwealth of Nations) are still in force.

G2bambino please direct me to the LEGAL DOCUMENTS that REPEAL these terms?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"British Commonwealth of Nations" is used in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster. Preambles do not have legal effect.
You confuse the differences between usages of the word "dominion": general usage, usage within the British Empire between 1867 and approximately the 1970s, and usage within Canada's official name. --G2bambino 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino, I do respect you. I really do. The point where you and I differ in on the "Split-Crown's" Constitutional-Monarchy Model. With regards to the usage of Dominion, Canada was founded as a Dominion in 1867, and the Canada Act 1982 did NOT change that , in other words Canada is still a Dominion (today in 2007). Canada's Dominion Status has never been legal repealed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting; perhaps you're right. The Statute of Westminster, which remains a part of the Canadian constitution, does define what a Dominion is, and says Canada is one. I'm unsure if any subsequent legislation overrides that. This is, however, still a different discussion to any about the country's name; that was the only point I was trying to make. --G2bambino 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello G2bambino. Okkie dokkie ... point-taken.
Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shows you what little I know, I thought the BNA was repealed in 1982, with the adoption of the Canada Act? GoodDay 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was simply renamed the Constitution Act, 1867. --G2bambino 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've got two viewpoints here, I reckon. First there's the legal one, which believes that a term used years ago and unrepealed is carved in stone. Then there's the pragmatic viewpoint that believes names should reflect historical context and the common understanding. The British do not always go to the trouble of repealing laws. They tend to be lazy that way. Rather they often just drop the observance of the law. This is the case with dominion, dropped by 1948 and replaced by 'realm' in 1953. In a beach in Adelaide, South Australia there was a by-law prescribing fall length suits on beaches that was not repealed until the 1980s. Does that mean that until then that beach was a fully-clothed beach? Certainly not. The authorities simply forgot to change the law! I don't think anyone has trouble understanding that Canada was constituted the 'Dominion of Canada'. Some of us are only asking, is it still a dominion? And we also ask, what is a dominion anyway?--Gazzster 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit on "dominion" discussion

I opened the last attempt to resolve the "dominion issue" on October 28, and made and RfC not long after that. I'm just wondering how long we should allow that particular survey to remain open. One week? Two weeks? The Canada article is generally a busy page, but so far it seems it's only the same three or four editors involved in trying to resolve the dispute - even the user who initiated the whole affair has gone strangely silent for quite some time. So, we'll have to wrap it up at some point - hopefully soon. Can we agree to make a choice from the above 17 suggestions on November 12? That allows two weeks for input. --G2bambino 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussion may continue for a good time more. I suggest that if anyone wants to edit, just go ahead and do it! And well, if the fur flies as a consequence, that's unavoidable, and may even deepen the discussion. I think myself it's unlikely that admin would respond to a request for intervention. The discussion after all is nuanced and rather obscure (but not the less important for that). --Gazzster 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can edit; the page has been locked for nearly a month now. As of Nov. 12 it will have been one month and two days. I suggest we close the discussion that day, and whichever option has the most support will be inserted. --G2bambino 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


LOL!!! Hello Gazzster.

"And well, if the fur flies as a consequence, that's unavoidable, and may even deepen the discussion."

Here, Here. Let the fur fly!

Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, ArmchairVexillologistDon has been arguing his case without success for several years on this page. The case has been 'resolved' several times (and never in favour of "Dominion") but that hasn't stopped the discussion. Good luck.
And Don, it's "hear, hear" not "here, here". Not knowing stuff like this really doesn't increase your credibility as an export in Canadian parliamentary procedure. 199.71.183.2 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, hold up. So you're saying someone's spelling skills have even the slightest to do with their credibility? I don't have much personal knowledge on the whole dominion thing nor do I really care one way or the other, but this really bothers me. For all you know (s)he could be dyslexic and simply has problems writing things down. I would suggest that if this discussion is to continue in a rational manner that the participants should start basing their judgments of the capability of other editors on logical arguments and the presentation of hard evidence, not simple typographical errors. L'Aquatique talktome 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa whoa there yourself, that's a pretty broad brush you are swinging around. "The participants" in this discussion have for the most part been grappling with logical arguments and hard evidence for several weeks and tens of thousands of word - cast your eyes up the page for a sample. As far as I can tell, the above comment is the only contribution made by User:199.71.183.2; that editor is hardly a participant at all. The rest of us have done fairly well at keeping things focussed on the content, not the typography, thank you very much. - Eron Talk 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel offended, I was simply making mention of something that bothered me. The reason that I put my comment directly under the offending one rather than at the bottom was to specify that mine was directed toward that user. Frankly, I'm surprised that the discussion has remained as civil as it has considering the controversy it discusses, and for that, I commend you. However, I do call it as I see it, whether or not that is a fault of mine perhaps remains to be seen. Also, I wanted to make mention of it because many people will read this who are not participants, indeed not even editors, and I don't want them to get the wrong impression of how we treat our fellow editors. Carry on, L'Aquatique talktome 05:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 199.71.183.2. Yes, I do have trouble spelling. I am an English-Canadian (i.e., English-Speaking Canadian) who was in early French-Emmersion. I speak and write Fr-english or Fr-anglais. I can't spell for shit, but I have managed to get a B.Sc., M.Sc., and a Ph.D.

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Ph.D., eh? The issue hear isn't spelling but meaning. Do you understand that the phrase is "hear, hear" as in "listen, listen, what he said is right and praiseworthy"? If so, then it truly is atrocious spelling to substitute "here" for "hear". On the udder hand, 199.71.183.2 may have just been playfully poking fun at your spelling. After all he did suggest that you were having credibility problems as an "export" in Canajun parlamentry proseejer. Export urself to Amurrica cuz wee no how to spel verry gud hear. --Richard 05:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in some respects, such as that Americans are generally poor spellers (before everyone and their uncle leaps all over me, I'm American, so I can say it) however I do think it is more complicated than you may think. Here and hear, as I'm sure you know, are homophones, which are generally confusing for everyone. If Don does in fact have a mild form of dyslexia (which I'm not saying he does) he may well have known exactly what he was talking about. I know how it feels, since I'm exactly the opposite: I have no problem reading or writing, but translating speech to text/understanding or vice versa can get tricky- I've been told I pronounce a lot of words funny (usually phonetically) and I have trouble understanding tv, movies, etc without captioning. It shouldn't effect my credibility as an editor, which it hasn't, just as Don's mistake shouldn't effect his. I apologize if I stepped on any toes. : ) L'Aquatique talktome 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that tomorrow would be a bit early to close the vote; we are just starting to get some suggestions that are a result of compromise. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I'm actually thinking I'm going to do tomorrow is throw out all the ones that certainly have no support and narrow the list down to three or four. Hopefully either one can be decided on, or some kind of composite. --G2bambino 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote results

Okay, as per above, I've closed the discussions and tallied the votes; this marks the one month and two day anniversary of the page being locked. Yay.

Considering a support and oppose vote equals one point, and a weak support and weak oppose vote equals 0.5 point, the results are as follows:

  1. 5 in favour/4 opposed acceptable 5/4 1 2
  2. 3 in favour/4 opposed rejected
  3. 4 in favour/5 opposed rejected
  4. 0 in favour/8 opposed rejected
  5. 0 in favour/5 opposed rejected
  6. 0.5 in favour/4.5 opposed rejected
  7. 2.5 in favour/3 opposed rejected
  8. 5.5 in favour/4 opposed acceptable 5.5/4 8 1
  9. 2 in favour/4.5 opposed rejected
  10. 1.5 in favour/4 opposed rejected
  11. 1.5 in favour/5 opposed rejected
  12. 0 in favour/5.5 opposed rejected
  13. 4.5 in favour/4 opposed acceptable 4.5/4 13 3
  14. 0 in favour/5 opposed rejected
  15. 0 in favour/5.5 opposed rejected
  16. 0 in favour/6 opposed rejected
  17. 0.5 in favour/3.5 opposed rejected
  18. 4 in favour/2 opposed acceptable 4/2 18 4
  19. 2 in favour/3 opposed rejected
  20. 2 in favour/1.5 opposed acceptable 2/1.5 20 5

Thus, in order of support, the acceptable proposals are:

  1. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[9] was formed.
  2. In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federation with dominion status.
  3. In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada.
  4. In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form a federation of four provinces.
  5. In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous entity of the British Empire. OR
— In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom.

Now that we've narrowed it down to five, hopefully we can choose one or create some combination/variation of/on them. --G2bambino 17:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on options

  • I am very much opposed to #3 because one of the BNA colonies was already called "Canada". For me to support it, it would have to be amended to something along the lines of "the current country of Canada". I weakly oppose #1, we can do this without a quote. I weakly oppose #5, it's a bit long-winded and the term "polity" is rarely used. I support #2, because I think saying "with dominion status" is a good compromise by including the word while not using it as a title. I also support #4, though I would want it amended to make it clearer that the federation mentioned is modern Canada. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, G2, for your efforts. Per AG, I also strongly oppose #3 (which is why the original article was changed); I'm unsure the proposed amendment would change my perspective -- it seems kitschy. As well, #4 is redundant with mention of 'federation' upfront in the 3rd paragraph. So, in order, I prefer #1 (since it is verbatim with reference and therefore not contestable), #5, and #2. Quizimodo 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose #1, oppose #2 and #5, support either #3 or #4.--Gregalton 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken into consideration the fact that several proposals were added after people had already commented on the existing ones? The last three on the list - two of which made your final five - did not have as full an airing as the other ones. - Eron Talk 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of this. --G2bambino 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1 and 2, Support 3 and 4, and cannot imagine how 5 could be seen as an improvement on anything. Seriously, folks, this is the lead to a general article; "semi-autonomous polity"? A slash and parentheses?
I truly cannot understand objecting to 3 on the grounds that their might be some confusion over the Canada that was created. If that is a problem, perhaps we need to move the whole article to Canada (country). The article itself begins with the statement "Canada (IPA: /ˈkænədə/) is a country..." That country - the modern political entity - is the subject of this article, and I believe in context it is quite clear that this is what is meant by statement 3. - Eron Talk 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per #5: I think the words in brackets were meant to be an alternative to "British Empire," not an actual part of the sentence. --G2bambino 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; that was not clear. (And, given that we had 20 options, I think I can be forgiven for assuming that if we were being presented with an alternative phrasing, it would have been given its own proposal.) - Eron Talk 23:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, but that would've merely added to the many options already available. 'Polity' (which is more accurate, but essentially means 'political entity') has since been replaced simply by 'entity'. Quizimodo 17:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support #3, on the grounds that simplicity is best, especially for a lead. A lead does not have to explain; that is the purpose of the article. And that is exactly what the relevant section in the main body does.--Gazzster 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it's so simplistic that it isn't really true; Canada was formed 75 years earlier, and along the way the term "Canada" changed its meaning a few times. #4 is only a bit more complicated, yet much less historically ambiguous. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask any Canadian when "Canada" was formed. While many will say "Huh?", those who do have an answer will say "July 1, 1867." I doubt that anyone will say that Canada was formed when the colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were formed, or the united Province of Canada, or the French colony of Canada. - Eron Talk 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AG. Let's please remember that the federal Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867, but the eponymous entities in the years prior. That's the difference between being precise and not. Quizimodo 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe Cartier first called the area "Canada" in 1534 but this article is discussing the modern Canada, the "country occupying most of northern North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean", which was indeed newly created in 1867. Previous colonies and places were called Canada and there are even other places today called Canada but clearly our topic is post-Confederation Canada. It would seem odd in the complete context of the first two paragraphs not to name the country in this sentence about its formation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the topic of this article concerns the modern state, but we are dealing with the crucial sentence regarding Confederation and what Canada became in 1867. We cannot mention Confederation without even alluding to what preceded it and what it was or became upon its inception in the lead ... and it didn't become just a federation. I also agree that we need to note the name of the resulting entity — and that's the benefit of #1. Quizimodo 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Canada occupied most of North America, extended from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward to the Artic Ocean in 1867. --G2bambino 17:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Canada that was created in 1867 does indeed. It didn't in 1867 but that's irrelevant. This article is not about Canada in 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That section of the article is indeed about Canada in 1867; frankly, I can't believe you missed that. --G2bambino 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose #1 & 5 as clunky and awkward to read. #2 does not work because of the long-discussed difficulty with saying "dominion status" which requires too much elaboration for the intro. #4 is not bad but #3 is the better. I think better yet might be to say: In 1867, three British North American colonies united in a new federation named Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this variant isn't clunky or wordy? There is also no allusion to its quasi-independence upon Confederation, which #5 accomplishes in spades. Quizimodo 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next sentence please. This sentence does not need to accomplish everything; just that this new country was formed in 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, conveniently, the next sentence currently reads "A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom moved Canada towards statehood and culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament." It needs some work, but it's not too bad. - EronTalk 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not just in the next sentence please, since the federal entity formed upon Confederation was not fully autonomous. And no one is saying that the sentence needs to 'accomplish everything', just to highlight the sort of federation that Confederation yielded -- and yes, that's one with 'dominion' status or similar. The next sentence can stand for some improvement, but no argument about what its emphasis should be. Quizimodo 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist that this sentence include mention that it was under British rule or a monarchy? Somewhere in the latest archive, that's what you said you required and I presume you intend to mean when you say "dominion status". DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to insist that this sentence not mention it, despite the fact that it was so? Quizimodo 22:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't. It's already better said in several other sentences. It doesn't need to cloudy this one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To not include it in that sentence, above all others, clouds the issue more than anything. In fact, your own proposal beforehand to sub in 'Dominion of Canada' but not 'dominion' given the context (e.g., as quoted in the constitution) remains perplexing. Quizimodo 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the time, I was trying to find a compromise. I gladly drop the proposal because the title is unnecessary in the sentence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How was your proposal in any way conciliatory? Given the above, I am sure I am not the only editor concerned by your apparently contradictory -- if not confusing -- actions. Quizimodo 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could support that amendment; it's simple yet it's clear what it's talking about. I still prefer #4 though, saying that it started out as four provinces adds a bit of extra information without making the sentence any more awkward. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) *I could live with DoubleBlue's proposal, but if we are going to modify the sentence, might I suggest another look at the (just barely) rejected proposal 7: "In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada." I think it is important to include the link to confederation. If it is still considered insufficiently clear to which "Canada" we are referring, we could say "In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form the modern country of Canada." - Eron Talk 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this variant isn't clunky? As well, it was not as grand in scope upon Confederation, being 1/5? its current size. Quizimodo 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'd happily drop "the modern country of;" it is superfluous in an article that is manifestly about the modern country of Canada. The size and scope of Canada on the day it was created are irrelevant; no one suggests that the United States of America wasn't really created on July 4, 1776 because it was a fraction of its current size on that date. That example also works if we consider political structure and level of independence. It is a somewhat arbitrary date; full independence wasn't secured until the American Revolutionary War was won in 1783, and the current political structure of the country wasn't established until the adoption of the current United States Constitution in 1787. But the date everyone remembers is July 4, 1776. - EronTalk 19:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, the 'modern country of Canada' was formed in 1999, with the creation of Nunavut. Anyhow, imprecision of the proposed wording aside, the accretion of territories is part-and-parcel of Confederation and the modern-day entity, so its hardly irrelevant; as well, the following sentence can be built to incorporate that (and suggestions are abound regarding this). Anyhow, this article is not just about the 'modern country' but pre-Confederation -- otherwise, we wouldn't note its inhabitation by aboriginals and historical underpinnnings, including the former Canadas. 'The modern country of Canada' contains as many words as 'a federation with dominion status' or (plus two) 'a semi-autonomous entity of the UK' or similar, with the last two at least being more meaningful (perhaps not to you or naysayers), so again resistance to including that fact in the lead and in the appropriate context is untenable. Quizimodo 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Canada was formed in 1867 with the BNA Act. Other provinces and territories were added to it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not precisely. The Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867 upon Confederation of the Provinces of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Quizimodo 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those colonies ceased to exist after 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: they were united into a federal Dominion, still under British rule. Quizimodo 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the country that still exists today, which is the subject of the article. That country has a history, which includes events that occurred in the various colonies and provinces that pre-dated its creation - which is why they are discussed in the article. That history continues to the present day, and includes the various territorial accretions. But the watershed moment at which those colonies became the new political entity is universally regarded as July 1, 1867. That is the day that the country of Canada was created. To ignore that is to be as wilfully blind as you seem to think we "nay-sayers" are. The most meaningful thing we can say of Confederation is that it created Canada. Adding the various qualifiers is unnecessary in the lead. Yes, yes, we all know that Canada wasn't truly independent then, but it is not necessary to go into that in the lead. Someone skimming the article should be able to come away from the lead possessed of a few simple facts, including the fact that the country of Canada was created on July 1, 1867. If they want to know some details of the gradual process of independence from Britain, they will just have to wait until they read the next sentence, or perhaps go as far as the history section a few paragraphs down the page. - EronTalk 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and I may know of the country's quasi-independence and conditions upon Confederation, but that is not the point. Others may not, and to not include this notion in the lead plus that of the titular entity which arose with this event is wilfully blind and a disservice to the readership. The infobox already and specifically notes this important date, and adding contextual and meaningful yet succinct details regarding that in the lead will only help to enhance understanding of Canada's progress towards autonomy. To do anything less for not what makes little sense. Quizimodo 15:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In essence, in many respects I feel we've come full-circle. The original edits were made precisely because of the lack of clarity of the original, inaccurate, simple version ... yet that is precisely what a number of editors seem to support. Yes, the intent of the introduction is to summarise, and (as demonstrated above) notions of Confederation and Dominion are inextricably linked and can/have been summarised. We are not simpletons -- any of #1, #2, or #5 are far more informative than other variants, without being excessive nor necessitating an overhaul of the rest of the introduction. Version #5 is a conciliation, merely linking to but not exhibiting 'dominion', yet it is still rejected by some because it is 'clunky and awkward'? There is definitely something very wrong with this. The three above are at least accurate. In response, #3 and #4 are simple and also awkward: #3 is imprecise (since 'Canada' existed before Confederation), and #4 doesn't even name the polity; either of these may also require modifications elsewhere in the introduction that are beyond the purview of this discussion (e.g., redundant notions of 'federation'). In summary: the term or notion of 'dominion' is either in the introduction or it isn't, and support for the latter -- considering that this is information which anyone can verify -- remains untenable. Quizimodo 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'dominion' is either in the introduction or it isn't, and support for the latter remains untenable: So your argument is "I'm right and you're wrong". This will go nowhere. I withdraw from discussion until sanity returns. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixation aside, it's not about right or wrong, but the very 'five pillars' you invoke -- including verifiability or, more to point, the equitability of content. Your own comments and actions have whittled away at those pillars as far as this lengthy discussion is concerned, so have fun. Quizimodo 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about your veiled accusations of bad behaviour. "I am sure I am not the only editor concerned by your apparently contradictory -- if not confusing -- actions," and "your own comments and actions have whittled away at those pillars," show the same failure to assume good faith that you accuse others of. If you have a problem with any editors conduct in this discussion, there are ways to raise it appropriately. In the absence of any concrete examples of this alleged bad behaviour, these dark mutterings seems a bit like an attempt to poison the well, if not engage in an outright ad hominem argument. - EronTalk 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I am concerned with your waffling. The well was poisoned long before I pointed this out: one needs to only glance at the excessive discussion (archived) above to observe the hypocrisy and lack of good faith by the instigator of this morass (who first suggests it would be fine to include 'dominion', then does a 180 and vehemently rejects it, pushes a malformed opinion about the term, misreads one key reference, uses a teenage one as the crux of another, and levels threats that this is a monarchist position), and the contradictory if not hypocritical behaviour of other editors, including User:DoubleBlue (who proposed including 'Dominion of Canada' yet not 'dominion', only to strangely withdraw the proposal after the fact). Arguments have been provided for and against, with much evidence provided for inclusion (including the constitution itself, still strangely deprecated by various editors) and little direct evidence against, which has been inflated and interpreted to manufacture a dilemma which doesn't exist in actuality. Wikipedia is not their mother, nor is it yours or mine. I am not innocent or inviolable either, but if editors are unwilling or unable to compel or persuade and have their arguments withstand scrutiny, then perhaps it is better off that they withdraw.
This discussion, all the result of a hyper-reaction to ONE word in the lead, is all but concluded: from the many options scrutinised, we have five options for the lead which have some degree of support -- the one with the most support is one which includes a direct and germane citation with that word and is as clear as crystal, and the next one also includes the term. Unless compelled otherwise, I will be asking that the article be unlocked so that this version can be inserted. Continuous discussion for so simple a notion -- and verifiable to boot -- and despite this article being locked for more than a month is an insipid and inexplicable disservice to editors and users. If you or naysayers cannot or will not accept that version and this fact in the lead of article, it is not our problem. Quizimodo 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! Beautifully put.
Speaking of the instigator of this morass, he hasn't been active on Wikipedia for, strangely, one month.
I'm with Quizimodo on this, the option that is verified by reliable sources does have the most support. We should request the page be unprotected. --G2bambino 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have to question your conclusion that the one with the citation is the one with the most support. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the only one I see with a citation is #1, and you seem to be the only editor to be in support of it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How quickly we forget: did you not participate in the poll with 20 options? This was archived, but I have restored at least this to the talk page. The option with the citation had the most relative support. Quizimodo 15:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not forgotten the 20-question poll; in the first round of voting #1 did indeed have a good level of support. However, now that the options have been narrowed down and we are working on compromises, you are the only person arguing strongly in favour of that option. You will likely find it hard to close the debate while standing alone. I have the impression that you are now focusing on the first round only because you won there, and if your option had support in this round, you would be focusing on it instead. I personally think that we are slowly making our way towards a compromise here. Splitting the sentence in two and including the term "dominion" in the second sentence (as per the discussion below) seems like the best compromise proposed so far. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have already indicated my support for a number of options -- for three of the five finalists in particular and one of which is most conciliatory (#5), yet that has received little attention or has been dismissed (rather incorrectly) as awkward vis-a-vis other versions. (In the truest sense of compromise, I would've expected this option to be the focus of our collective efforts.) Naysayers (for lack of a better word) have fixated on versions #3 and #4, which while simple are (perhaps because of that) just as awkward if not imprecise and rather misleading, and they are certainly not conciliatory. I could point out one or few of the prior polls, or any number of prior points. Nonetheless, it is hard to dispute a version (#1) which contains a direct citation from the constitution, which above others and amidst the artificial smokescreen is why I strongly support it. And despite all of the above, I shouldn't need to defend that -- #1 is rooted in a fundamental Wikipedia policy. So, resistance to that is predicated on something else and said editors should be more introspective regarding the reasons why. Relatedly, I suspect that naysayers are just as well unnecessarily drawing out the debate and fixating on #3 and #4 precisely because those options did not prevail. Really, how much longer does this really need to be drawn out and the article locked? Please ... I will proceed as above.
In the interim, we could consider splitting the sentence as put below, but how is that advantageous to the succinct versions already polled upon? Can someone actually place this proposed version for our scrutiny? Thanks. Quizimodo 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The advantage of splitting the sentence is that it we could clearly explain the union that took place in one sentence, and then clearly explain what Canada's status was in the next. We would have two short, clear sentences and not have to awkwardly explain everything at once. I only oppose #1 because it tries to say too much at once. If the referenced quote had its own sentence to explain it, I would support it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eron. I'll say it plain ... I've always found your editing style on this Canada page offensive.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive? Interesting. Please provide some examples of my offensive editing. - EronTalk 02:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Good grief. It's good to be an American! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.108.159 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this entire discussion fascinating. I use Wikipedia a lot but have never ventured to either edit or add to any discussion. I looked up Canada just out of curiosity because my daughter's family will be moving to Canada soon -- our two grandchildren ages 12 and 4 have been raised in the U.S. and know nothing of the history etc. -- they only know that they love going to the "Cottage". I wanted to send the elder a link to the article.

My point -- having been raised in Canada but not a historian per se (and also being older) -- I remember when we were called "The Dominion of Canada". In that context, it is a capital D, correct ? My recollection may be imprecise ... but would it be wrong to say "The Dominion of Canada was formed through the British North America Act of 1867 uniting three colonies". A sentence could be inserted between the above and the "gradual independence" sentence if you also feel the need to clarify that Canada was a dominion vs a Dominion.

Another approach, if you feel that the intro is getting too wordy, would be to remove all of this to a historical section and leave the intro to focus on what Canada is now, vs its progression to full independence.

Cheers. Thompsw 12:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already include the word "Dominion" in the history section, and I don't think anyone opposes it there. I kind of like your idea of adding a sentence between the "in 1867" one and the "gradual independence" one. However, I have a feeling that the anti-dominion crowd will be any more pleased to see it there than they were to see it here. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible third and final round

I think the above discussions have been converging on two consensus ideas: one is a hybrid of #3/4, and the other is something with a quoted reference in it along the lines of #1 that possibly split into two sentences. Could we maybe finalize each of these two options and vote between the two? We might also want to split the above talks into "discussion of #3/4 option" and "discussion of referenced option" so the two camps can finalize their proposals. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. I'd be happy to participate in the discussion. I would appreciate it if the discussion could focus on the proposals; I'm getting rather tired of arguments focused on the participants. Comments about "naysayers", "waffling", "artificial smokescreen(s)", and the assumption that editors who disagree are "instigators of [a] morass" who are resisting the truth for POV reasons are not helpful or constructive. This is clearly a contentious topic that people feel strongly about; all the more reason to focus on content and not contributors. Some of the comments - and out of respect for the wishes of the plain-spoken ArmchairVexillologistDon I'll name him specifically - are descending to the level of personal attack. This tone has already driven several editors away from this discussion. - EronTalk 19:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eron. Thank you for speaking plainly. I appreciate your candor. You dislike my "bluntness", and I dislike your "word-smithing", and "rules-lawyering" of the Wikipedia code-of-conduct.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea - whatever it takes, to get the traffic going again. GoodDay 19:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll create two sections below to hold the talks. Each camp can hammer out their proposal, and then we'll meet back up when they're done. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finalization of option A: #3/4 hybrid

Finalization of option B: referenced version a la #1

Archiving

This talk page is getting ridiculously long. Can we agree to archive up to, but not including, Section # 57 "A minor change" or does anyone think we still need old proposals on main talk page? DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We should sign up for one of those bots that archives automaticaly when a topic hasn't been discussed in a long time. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. --G2bambino 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support using an archive bot. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ya got me sold. GoodDay 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Population Density

It says that Canada is 219th in the infobox, but if you click on the link it is in the 180s. Can an editor please fix this? Thanks. BCapp 03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada&oldid=171589364"