Talk:Canada/Archive 18

Opinions on undemocratic nature of Governor General's powers

I've rewritten them in a way that is closer to the references. I'm still open to improvements in the wording.

There can be no doubt, though, that Liberal governments and many constitutional scholars have opposed any kind GG prerogative in calling elections. The sources clearly say so. That is the issue here and I'd appreciate that this point be acknowledged before proceeding. --soulscanner (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Governor General can't call an election, who can? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Governor General is normally seen as simply an extension of the English Monarchy (even though the GG is now appointed by the Prime Minister). The argument against the Governor General having any sort of powers is traditionally the same as the argument against the Queen of England having any political powers, ie an anti-autocracy argument. Personally I'm of 2 minds in the matter.

Anyway, the feeling amongst the anti-GG crowd seems to revolve around the fact that she (or he) is not an elected official. Much the same as people don't like the senate because it isn't elected. EDIT: I've never heard anyone be completely clear on this, but I assume that the anti-GGers want the power to call an election to be solely in the hands of the Prime Minister (which, to all intents and purposes, it is now anyway). Gopher65_talk 15:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't say Queen of England. Say Queen of the United Kingdom, or in this case Queen of Canada. It's interesting to note though, Governor General Jean didn't refuse PM Harper's request for a federal election (even though he breached the 'fixed terms' Act). It would've been interesting if Dion, Duceppe & Layton had agreed to form a coalition government. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I purposefully said "England"; it was not an accidental slip. As Horton the Elephant said, "I said what I meant and I meant what I said". Gopher65_talk 03:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You can say whatever you want. Call her the Queen of Zambia if you feel like it. But you would be wrong. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While constitutional scholars such as Eugene Forsey, considered by many to be Canada's foremost expert on such matters, maintain that the sovereign and Governor General do retain their right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations, others have stated that such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution, with Liberals adhering to the view that the Governor General does not have the right to refuse dissolution from the prime minister.

I very much dislike the set-up of this as Forsey vs democracy. Forsey would not claim it was democratic. The very beauty of the constitutional monarchy is that the farther down the power chart one goes, the greater the democratic legitimacy. The Governor General has the power to disallow legislation and dissolve Parliament but to not follow the advice of her PM would be against constitutional history and require an unfathomable extraordinary reason for the people not to dismiss her on such a move.

I am removing the the words "others have stated that" and replacing them with "however". DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever yas prefer. Again, the very fact the Governor General didn't refuse Harper on September 7; is very noteworthy. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that the wording has been changed while I was writing the above. I will have to consider it further. I still dislike the Forsey vs democracy set-up. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the CSPS as discounting Forsey's stance either. In fact, the source says: "Yet the system of responsible government needs a head of state with enough independence to withstand a determined government's assault on the constitution, although not enough to interfere in democratic politics." DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we not say something like Constitutional scholars maintain that the Governor General retains the right to use the Royal Prerogative in exceptional constitutional crisis situations but only in order to defend Canada's democracy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Is not the Governor General peforming those Royal Prerogatives, when she signs bills into law, dissolves Parliament (for example). GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, do as you see fit. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Does the wording hint that the use is extraordinary, it is intended to say that in extraordinary conditions, she might use the power against her PM's advice. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean isn't it the Governor General's Royal Prerogative to sign bills aswell as veto them? To call an election, as well as refuse to? GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya'll will have to be patient with me. The Governor General's duties are something I'm not fully familiar with. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The current wording seems fine, but if I may make a suggestion, I think it would be worthwhile to expand on these points in a new paragraph within the current section (Government and politics). The average reader, unless they wade through a couple of other articles, I think may be left a bit confused as to the constitutional role of the monarchy and its powers in law (de jure) and in practice (de facto). Forsey, for all intents and purposes, outlines what the status quo is and his interpretation is as close to the letter of the law as one can get. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think anyone here disputes that. The reality of the law in practice, however, can differ depending on the current government. Anyway, my view is that the facts should be presented as neutrally as possible, without needlessly confusing the reader. DoubleBlue above makes a good point above. The Canadian public service is not in opposition to the status quo as represented by Forsey's mainline interpretation - it is simply making a clarification as per the realities of the Governor General's position. All things considered, I'm not sure if any constitutional scholars oppose Forsey on this. Liberal politicians, however, have been very adamant in their opposition to any de facto exercise of power by the Governor General. I think that much is clear, but their view does not necessarily have constitutional credibility. The Governor General, as Forsey explains, is intended as a defender and guarantee of constitutional freedom and democracy, which of course would only be theoretically exercised under extraordinary circumstances. For instance, if a prime minister attempted to vastly expand their powers to that of an executive and establish a totalitarian state. Thankfully, that's highly unlikely in a country like Canada (of course, you never know), but nevertheless, under such circumstances the Governor General would be well within their constitutional right to take action against maneuvers. IranianGuy (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The wording could be simplified considerably. Please give it a shot. Your contribution so far has been appreciated. --soulscanner (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that the public service quote does not oppose Forsey's interpretations, it just points out that the the House, the Prime Minister, and the Canadian people as a whole may object to a GG intervening in the democratic process (a reference to the King-Byng affair of 1926). Also, this section is likely not the place to expand on this subject. Conflicting interpretations of the GG's discretionary powers is not a hot topic in Canada today. The concentration of powers in the PMO is much more of an issue. However, if the topic is breached here, the various opinions (of which Forsey is one) should be mentioned. --soulscanner (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say anything about the views of the Prime Minister and House of Commons on the democratic nature of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative? --G2bambino (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotes 39 and 40. Or is there a difference between the Crown's Reserve Power and Royal Prerogative that I'm missing? --soulscanner (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is not the place to write about different views of the system. In a summary article such as this we should simply record the facts. Different opinions about them should be moved to a more detailed article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... everyone has expressed in one way of another that the Forsey vs. democracy thing does not belong on this page; moved to Government of Canada, along with references. --soulscanner (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

References

• "The Canadian Encyclopedia: Responsible Government". Historica Foundation of Canada. This key principle of responsibility, whereby a government needed the confidence of Parliament, originated in established British practice. But its transfer to British N America gave the colonists control of their domestic affairs, since a governor would simply follow the advice (ie, policies) of responsible colonial ministers.
• "Canadian Cofederation: Responsible Government". Library and Archives Canada. The Executive Council would be governed by the leader of the political party that held an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly. That same leader would also appoint the members of the Executive Council. The governor would therefore be forced to accept these "ministers", and if the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly voted against them, they would have to resign. The governor would also be obliged to ratify laws concerning the internal affairs of the colony once these laws had been passed to the Legislative Assembly.

Comments

I'm not sure how that fixed election date reference got in there (a bit of a wash as it turned out) but maybe we'll deal with that later. I think issues of government stability, the Privy Council and Responsible governemnt are of course important, but like the residual powers of the GG can best be dealt with elsewhere for the sake of brevity. --soulscanner (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I slipped in my suggestion for cabinet ministers, in bold. Not wedded to ti though. Franamax (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope this isn't going to piss anyone off, but the more I study this and look at the article, the broader the scope of work starts to seem; for instance, because parliament is mentioned, and parliament makes law, the section in the article that follows that on the government and politics is getting drawn into the revamp, as I'm seeing it. This, I think, is a consequence of Canada's weblike system wherein legal, executive, and judicial branches are separate yet inextractibly linked and overlapping. I'm going to have to think on this more. Plus, I can only handle so much of this dial-up internet connection where I am right now! Truly Precambrian. --G2bambino (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if alot of these proposed changes, should be made at the article Governor General of Canada. Also, the Prime Minister & cabinet members can have seats in the Senate, instead of the House of Commons. Excuse the trivia folks, but Member of Parliament actually means member of the House of Commons and member of the Senate (since both make up the one). GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Version 2 does say Cabinet ministers are usually MP's; that acknowledges that exceptions do occur. Just about everything in Canadian government has caveats; brevity always needs to be a consideration in these decisions. --soulscanner (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed what I presume are typos in the above suggestion. If I made any change that wasn't just a grammar improvement feel free to revert. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is looking very good, but as G2 notes, it's now subsuming the 3rd paragraph. Para 3 ("The leader of the 3rd party...") should be shot on sight, it conflates organization with current status. The role of the official opposition should move up into one of these two paragraphs - it's notable that the role of the second largest party is "official opposition", i.e. one of the features of Canada's government is to encourage an adversarial system.

On another topic - the calling of elections: let's just forget about the current law on fixed dates for now and work this wording out (later, we can introduce the sourced fact that the fixed-date law and breach thereof was and is the subject of court challenges - if someone objects). Problem here: the current wording is that "may be triggered by...losing a confidence vote". Until, umm, recently, the only votes of confidence were either votes on treasury matters or explicit motions of confidence. This has lately been blurred by statements that all votes on legislation are confidence votes and presumably played a part in the recent request for election writ. So:

• The mandate must be renewed at least every five years; the mandate must be sustained by the elected members and is considered revoked on defeat of a treasury matter or passage of a motion of non-confidence by the elected members; and the current prime minister can request a writ at will.
• The mandate must be renewed on a fixed date, the date being almost exactly four years from the prior election date, by extant legislation. This legislation has been breached, since an election writ was proclaimed in the absence of motions of non-confidence or defeat of treasury bills, and is the subject of court challenges. (Inclusion of this is fine, but is recentism at its best)

So the two para's above are missing: 1) role of the opposition; 2) all the conditions where the PM can call an election (i.e. when he/she feels like it); 3) and most important, the essential role of the GG in mediating this - she has to balance all the above and determine where the mandate/lack of mandate lies, and whether another mandate can be found within the existing elected representatives. Except for the five-year rule, the wording above (at this time) doesn't give a simple view of these complexities.

I'll not try a rewording right now, just throwing some thoughts out there. Franamax (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And just as a gut-check that I'm being consistent on this: my understanding is that the GG has almost zero unilateral powers save inviting some "party" (not a political party, a legal party) to form a government which may sustain the confidence of the elected members. In the case where the government has lost confidence from the House, the GG has the prerogative to invite other members of the House to form a government; and in the case of a fresh election, the GG has the prerogative to invite "parties" (not members of the party which won the most seats) to form a government, should the party not be able to form a stable government. King-Byng shows us (and all GG's since) how badly that can go wrong in the case of a desired election call - and recent events have shown just how useless it can be for the GG to accept the election call (but there's a lot more people getting paid cabinet minister salary, plus pension, plus office budget, plus chauffeur - must be good for the economy). I'm not interested in recent events so much though - the GG can play a crucial role in the formation of a government. That's never happened, but is a notable reserve power. "While the GG would normally follow the instruction of a majority government, in minority governments the GG could play an important role in choosing between the party with the most votes and a governing coalition of smaller parties".

Undent self so discussion can resume. Restate my arguments in ten words or less, maybe then they'll be article-worthy :) Franamax (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with everything here, although rearranging the references has fried my powers of concentration; especially agree with the part about restating arguments in ten words or less ;-) ... I'm afraid the deed is done, though. --soulscanner (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Added notes; there's lots of them. The ones under "references" seem more historical (refer to colonial government) and probably should be added to the history section when discussing responsible government. --soulscanner (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, you guys have done really great work here. The length of time between elections should possibly be left out of this. It is rather complicated and in flux at the moment. If necessary we could say that there is legislation for fixed-term elections at four-year intervals but that elections may be called earlier if, and I know this wording is not-preferred, the government loses the confidence of the House. Another thing that I think needs to be briefly mentioned in this section is the division of powers with the provinces. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be for mentioning the 5 years or people could think that a government could go on forever; the 4 year fixed term is obviously not constitutionally binding; the 5 year term is; is the division of powers no mentioned under the "Law" section? --soulscanner (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The 5 year limit is definitely in the wikisource:Constitution Act, 1867#50. and C-16 does call for elections in October in the fourth calendar year following the previous election but with the provision that the law does not affect "the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion". I think that the maximum term then could be following a January election where it is some 4 years and 9 months, if I understand it correctly. Of course, the Canada Elections Act is simply an act of Parliament and could be easily changed but, for now, it is the law. Perhaps, though, it is simply easier in this overview to mention the Constitutional limit on Parliament of five years. I can imagine we shall have to do a lot of corrections, however of people wanting to say it's four years now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This fixed date law is new, and it's too soon to tell if it's constitutionally valid and can be upheld by the courts, or if the PM and GG can ignore it at will. It sure looks like the PM ignored it in the last election. In anycase, I think this is a good example of a complex issue more suitable for the Government of Canada page. --soulscanner (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Introduced changes to article; changed the sequence of some paragraphs too; Thought one paragraph on Parliament and legislature, one on executive, and one on federalism made sense. --soulscanner (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Canadian Identity"

I just removed a section (that though I mostly agreed with in spirit) I don't think belongs in this article, without at least some discussion. The "Canadian Identity" is really a very complex thing. It has changed a lot throughout history, and I'm not sure if there is really much that actually covers us all aside from "We are all in this together, for peace, order, and good government, because we are stronger together." We are, as a country, a union of commendably diverse regions (usually several per province) that have very different outlooks. Being from (central) PEI and living in (Victoria) BC, I can say that it feels a little like another country. Quebec city would feel more familiar in some ways, and I'm Anglophone (though bilingual). So while I would love to gush about how much I love this country, and all the good things I think we share, I doubt I could write something we could all agree on. Case and point: I supported Dion. :) Anyone disagree or have a suggestion for the section / the user's contribution. naturalnumber (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

La Francophonie

No mention is made of the fact that Canada is a member of La Francophonie despite the fact that the Commonwealth is mentioned. It doesn't seem appropriate to ignore Canada's French heritage, especially considering Canada's role in La Francophonie is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.4.156 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out the Foreign relations section. --soulscanner (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also added this to the introduction, immediately after mention of Canada being in the Commonwealth of Nations: given Canada's bilingual nature, it seems appropriate to note both the British and French 'leagues' Canada is in, not just one of them. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Etymology restored to consensus version

Please note request in Etymology section to discuss and gain consensus for any changes to this section. Please do not make edits like this [1] until discussing them on the talk page. This is a consensus version that has been arrived at after considerable discussion. Please respect that consensus.

We've been through this countless times. [2][3]--soulscanner (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And there's no need to go over it again; what I did was a copyedit, not a change to the actual content of the section. Unless, that is, you specifically mean the removal of the sentence "This was reflected in 1982 with the renaming of the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day." This was a) unsourced, and b) somewhat tangential to the subject. I read many complaints that the article is too long, so that makes me wonder why excess like that should be kept. --G2bambino (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it, pending further discussion. --G2bambino (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that G2bambino's edits change the consensus on the name of Canada. The section still explicitly says that the only official name of Canada is "Canada", which is the main thing. I'm not entirely sure about the change from "referred to as a Dominion" to "conferred the title of Dominion", but I think it's worth further discussion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I do find the wording of that particular sentence to still be rather awkward; however, just to be clear, it said "conferred the title..." before I copyedited the section. --G2bambino (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to the original version, with the relevant references added. Please discuss any proposed changes to the wording here to assure that they reflect the fact that "Canada" is the country's only legal name. --soulscanner (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What it seems you've done is undone some minor wording changes that were done to improve syntax and readability, none of which changed the message of the section. Wording is now, again, fragmented and the punctuation is poor. Further, the image is too large for the section and jammed up against those at the head of the following History section. --G2bambino (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've corrected the issue of jamming by using the upright parameter. It also means we don't have to lock in a px width which voids users being able to choose thumb sizes in their prefs. It's difficult to judge the wording differences between the versions. Can we state the issues one by one here and decide on a consensus version like what was done before for the Government and politics section? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'm satisfied with the section's present state (save for the image, which I still think should be removed; there seems to be too many images and infoboxes jammed up in that area). --G2bambino (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the pic is not necessary but I must say, looking at the article with and without it, I do prefer to have it. It's the first human face in the article and links nicely to Cartier which is well-mentioned as the first to generalise the name "Canada" to the area. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big proponent of images, actually; so, I too would prefer to keep it. It's just that circumstances sometimes mean an image or two have to be sacrificed; for instance, if we condense the history section, I imagine some of its illustrations will have to go. But, we'll see what transpires. --G2bambino (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think reducing the history section will be painful but worth it. A link to a Commons gallery of Canadian history images might help salve that. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Subsections in History Section

1. Edits like this [4]have been discussed several times [5] (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Templates). The history section is too long. Adding sections makes it longer, and makes the Table of Contents box unwieldy. Please discuss changes like this here before making them.
2. Low-grade vandalism and incivility by G2bambino (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) such as changing the Aboriginal concept of the "beginning of time" " to [[Planck epoch|beginning of time]] under the guise of "copyediting" should not happen. Aboriginal Canadians, of course, knew nothing of the Planck epoch or quantum mechanics in general in their legends and mythology. Please keep attempts at sarcastic humor on the talk pages where they can be fully appreciated for what they are without vandalizing of the article. Please appreciate that the editor has been discouraged from this chronic behaviour here and here. Be nice!

--soulscanner (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I caution you to be careful with lauching baseless accusations, lest you find yourself in trouble because of them. Further, reverting is not the solution to a couple of editing concerns. And, just for your information, have a look at where beginning of time redirects to. I wondered about the appropriateness of it, but couldn't find any articles on mythological beginnings of time. If you objected, all you had to do was remove the link, instead of undoing all my work. Please don't edit like that again. --G2bambino (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to trim the history section. It still, though, seems to need subsections. This would not be unusual, given United States#History, Germany#History, France#History, Norway#History, China#History, Mexico#History, and others. --G2bambino (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that Beginning of time is inappropriate. Perhaps something like Creation_myth#North_America? Gopher65_talk 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually that's perfect (I think, anyway). Thank you. --G2bambino (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that soulscanner doesn't actually want the history section reduced, as he keeps adding detail back in. I'm a bit perplexed as to what exactly he's doing. --G2bambino (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes should be discussed here first. You should not make large content edits that change the page substantially without discussion first, or to make a point. Please gain consensus first. --soulscanner (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD says otherwise. You above expressed concern about the length of the history section, so I attempted to trim it to suit your desires. You've since put everything back in, keeping the section at its previous length (amongst other problems). So, I'm at a loss now as to what to do to satisfy you. --G2bambino (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets discuss what you want to trim here first. --soulscanner (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What I "want" to trim is evidenced in what I trimmed: detail that, while not invalid or incorrect (for the most part), fills out the section. In order to shorten it, detail needs to be removed in favour of summary. Judging by your edit summaries, however, you seem to feel that none of that detail can be removed, which leads us right back to the problem of a too-long history section. --G2bambino (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Which trim do you wish to discuss? I'll remind you that the discussion page is for discussing article content, not my behavior and Wikipolicy. --soulscanner (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the personal commentary you allude to, but I apologise for any unintended offence if there was any. What I wish to first discuss is trimming the section overall: I don't have any particular attachment to any of the content beyond keeping it coherent and informative. So, what do you think can be taken out/condensed/summarised? --G2bambino (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the history section is too long, but I don't think that this is a pressing issue. I'm for reverting to the consensus version; I think it's more important to respect consensus than to shorten the article. It's been this way for months.

I'm not opposed to trims, I just think that they should be discussed here first. I also think all deletions should be justified first: "copyed" is not a jutification for removing content from wikipages. --soulscanner (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not; hence I never used "copyed" as a summary for removing content. For removing content, I said "trim history section", "more trimming", "more copyed & trim", and the like. Now, if we're to shorten the section, that inevitably means changing what has been consented to by silence. Are you prepared to do that? Or shall we just leave it at its present length? I'm easy either way, though the section does need copyedited. --G2bambino (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I for one would like to see Soulscanner's proof of "consensus". I would also like to see Soulscanner not make any edits without first discussing every little change he intends to make here first. This includes not reverting anyone without first discussing aforementioned reversion. This is what he dictates that everyone else do. He should follow his own mandate. P.S. See WP:OWN. Laval (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How about we move on to on-topic discussions of how to improve the article, instead? It's so very easy to move on to comments on editors rather than edits, especially on such an important article and with the personalities involved, but I hereby resolve to do my best. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada#Provinces_and_territories

Added references and removed tag. Also, moved references to unicameral legislatures, etc. to Government and politics section to avoid repetition.

Can this section be moved to before the History section? The history section refers extensively to provinces and shows a map showing the evolution of Canada's territory. It makes sense that readers know where these provinces are before referring to them elsewhere in the article. --soulscanner (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go immediately following Government and politics; if not a subsection of it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly something I was toying with, DB. I started mucking about with it at my sandbox. I think it would go a long way to improving readability. --G2bambino (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it at a state that you could provide a link and we could see how it looks? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I took a bit of a break from this article. Er, as for the sandbox: it's here, but all that's been done so far is merge the provinces section in and divide the present gov't section into three subs: executive, legal, and judicial. I think, though, that we shouldn't load our plate up too much, and should probably tackle the history section first, no? --G2bambino (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the subsections seems better in theory than in practice. It doesn't look good, in my opinion. At any rate, I agree that that kind of major re-organisation can be taken on later. However, I think simply moving the Provinces and territories section to immediately following Government and politics is a simple but important improvement that can be done now, if there are no objections. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article (except perhaps in a map) is it COMPLETELY clear what the names of the provinces & territories are. A newcomer could easily be lead to believe (at least until they try counting them up, and maybe even afterwards) that "Central Canada" & other vague regional names [BTW: Quebec extends further east than every province but one, and parts of it are further east than parts of that one] were names of provinces. The use of regional names is counter-productive in the paragraph. Complicating all this is the use of a conjunction in the name of ONE of the provinces. We have other tables in the article - it seems a table of provinces & territories would be the clearest way to state their names. Tables are easier to parse than lists embedded in paragraphs--JimWae (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

JimWae, I partly agree with you and partly think that we can leave the details to the more specific articles. I think that this section will become clearer when it is moved immediately following Government and politics and we can also do some editing to make it flow better from there and improve readability and understanding. I worry that a table will be too large for this section and make better sense in the detail articles. The focus here, from my perspective, is understanding the political divisions between the federal and provincial levels and specifying the current names of provinces and regions. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

History section

As much as I enjoy Canadian history, I would dearly like to have this section surgically edited to look far more like the nice overview done for the Government and politics. I'm afraid it is far too much a TLDR section now in what should be a pleasurable and informative short read; enticing one to read on to one of the linked related articles that interests.

Is it possible to have a nice, civil discussion of how it can be edited? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems, then, that you, soulscanner, and myself all agree on the length of that section being a bit excessive. As I'm sure you're aware, I made an attempt at trimming it down; by no means do I believe what I did was perfect, and soulscanner's undoing all of it would imply he was not satisfied with my work. So, with the B and R of BRD done, discussion is now where we're at, and I'm fine with that.

Should we start putting forward proposed wordings, do you think? --G2bambino (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not actually see the version you had and I feel to lazy to go through the complicated history to find it. :-) It would probably also be more constructive to work it out on the talk page, or possibly a subpage.

I would entertain discussion of proposed changes. I don't have any particular proposals at this point but looking it over, I did see many mentions that, while of great Canadian historical importance, would be better off in a more specialised article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Where I got it to before soulscanner's reverts was here; not perfect, but I thought it was a start to condensing the material into summary. But, yes, from here on we should discuss; soulscanner will be off block soon, and I imagine he will have some input to offer. Perhaps we should go through it paragraph by paragraph? Alas, right now I have to run out to meet friends for a beer... yes, beer does come before Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say. --G2bambino (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Rather than editing to (or presenting our previous) preferred versions, can I suggest the following?:

• What are the thematic divisions that History should be divided into? i.e. unwritten/aboriginal, contact and exploration, French colonization/conquest/aboriginal relations, British colonization/1812 War, Responsible Government/rail-age/border issues, western expansion/NWMP/Metis/border issues, Confederation, immigrant era/western provinces, world wars, economic expansion/silent revolution. Can we reduce that to three main themes, with three paragraphs for each?
• Concurrently, can we separate "obvious" edits like correcting ref's and "copyediting" from substantive changes - just so we can all keep track, and a revert of something simple doesn't get blown all out of proportion?
• Can we propose substantive changes here first? The changes to Government went pretty well when we were all talking here before making the changes.
• And in any event, can we all take it slow? If we all make just one change per day, I'm pretty sure we'll still slip it in under the deadline :) Franamax (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with the thematic divisions though it obviously needs tinkering. Discussing here first and doing the give and take toward consensus is exactly correct. Clearly even small changes can be controversial in this topic and edit wars, besides being lame, risk our Featured Article status. The reminder about our deadline is well-taken. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Faranmax has laid out nine divisions, which is a number easily divided into three. That would give us three sections: 1) pre-colombian/exploration/colonisation/conquest/1812 war, 2) responsible government/railways/western expansion/confederation/Metis, and 3) world wars/economic expansion/Quiet Revolution/Afghanistan. It does seem like a daunting task to summarise all those issues into three paragraph each, but I think it can be done. --G2bambino (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I like those divisions, the cut lines seem to be 1815-1820 or so; and 1900-1910 (the Boer War being Canada's first entry onto the world stage, albeit still colonial, the immigrant age extending past that a little bit, Vimy Ridge being the definitive marker). 1820 and 1910 for our reference points then? Franamax (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Side note while I'm at it: would "definition of the borders" merit it's own section/sub-section? Arostook (sp?) Valley/Saint John River, 49th parallel, the Panhandle giveaway, the little burp at Lake of the Woods? Too much detail? If anyone has back issues of The Beaver, it's discussed in detail (I gave mine away when I moved :() - worthy of a separate article in fact. Franamax (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those would appear to be good places to make "divisions". The border issues do seem an interesting subject, but I'm not sure it should be detailed in this article; perhaps a summary of sorts in the geography section? --G2bambino (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian redirect

Why is it that on some pages the word Canadian does not redirect to this article? There is nothing that is Canadian that does not refer directly to Canada (that I know of!). NorthernThunder (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant dispute discussions

3RR discussion

First ANI report

Second ANI report

For information's sake. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 09:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

History section 2

• Consensus seems to indicate that History should not have subsections, with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries strongly supporting this convention. We have discussed this many times[6][7]. IMHO, I think there needs to be some very compelling reasons to depart from a highly recommended template.

• Here's a topic outline for history; each topic should be equally weighted; tweak as you may ...

1. Pre-European/ natives
2. Early European exploration" Vikings, Cabot, Cartier, Basques
3. French and English settlement; French Exploration
4. Colonial wars: to 1763
5. American Revolution/War of 1812/English Canada
6. Rebellions and Responsible Government
7. Western Canada and exploration
8. Confederation/MacDonald era/National Policy
9. Laurier Era/Immigration/West
10. World War I
11. Independence/Depression/CCF
12. WW II
13. Postwar baby-economy boom/Nfld (shorter paragraph)
14. Pearson/Trudeau era
15. Quebec/Quiet Revolution/Parti Quebecois/Referenda
16. Mulroney era/Meech Lake/Bloc-Reform
17. Modern era? Too recent for history?

• Note that peacekeeping/Free Trade/Afghanistan are recent and significant enough to move to other sections, as they are important enough in contemporary Canada to be emphasized there. User:Soulscanner 07:46 11Nov08 (signed by Franamax (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

I was not suggesting sub-sections per se, more that we organize our thinking around those three main thematic divisions of history (1820/1910) and attempt to give equal and concise weight to each. We can avoid recentism that way and deliver the full picture. The cut-points are of course open to debate, but they seem pretty natural to me. In your schema above, the division lines would be at "Rebellions..." and "World War I". That doesn't leave a lot of room for the last third, but hey, that's history for ya. :) Franamax (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I started hashing out something while I was on.. ahem.. block. I'll try to get more done on it once a fire that's sprung up elsewhere has been quelled. I'm not sure where the consensus against subsections is, though. --G2bambino (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel opposed to having subheadings within the History section. It should be a brief and interesting read that needs no subsections. Talk of subsections in earlier discussions had to do with combining Gov't, Provinces, and possibly Law. I think that may seem better in theory than practice but need not be discussed at the same time as History. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I tend to favour subsections for the sake of readability, but I'm not adamant about their inclusion. I just didn't see any consensus formed on their exclusion from the history section here. --G2bambino (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced to have subsections but I do think that it should be unnecessary and, in that case, intrusive. I also note soulscanner's link below to the WikiProject Countries article template and the advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections for 4 to 6 paragraphs including a paragraph on recent events. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I originally added subsections myself, but they were removed. I was convinced that the template should take priority over my personal preferences as a good guide for building a country page, and accepted this as consensus. This is also an FA class article, and the history section as remained stable for several months without sections. --soulscanner (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... In Quebec, it's generally done 1) pre columbian - 1763 New France 2) 1763 - 1867 British North America 3) 1867 - now Confederation. Largely academic if you don't have sections. I guess that argues well for omitting sections. :-)--soulscanner (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, the above list represents paragraphs. Do we need to consolidate paragraphs to shorten the article? --soulscanner (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Blue posts? GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I obviously take -way- too long to type stuff, so I'll collapse everything I've done here and figure out the edit conflict I'm going to have. Or the wrong section I'm in, I'm way behind the times!

History - 3x4

There's the brilliance of my "three divisions" - it divides into twelve equally well. :) Here's another schema, collapsed so as not to be tiresome:
Early (xx-1820)

• First nations / Vikings / Basque / French exploration
• New France / early aboriginal conflicts / Jesuits / Fur trade (early)
• British incursions / Conquest (and Iroquois vs. Huron/Wendat?)
• Acadian expulsion / UEL / War of 1812 / Red River-49th parallel

Mid (1820-1910)

• Family Compact / Rebellions / Durham / Responsible government

(Note: somewhere that I can't lay my finger on is the decision to allow Quebec to maintain language, religion, civil vs. common law - this was a singular event, for better or worse - Dorchester/Durham/Sydenham? Some lord or other recommended it!)

• "Eastern" colonies / Rail Age / Confederation
• NWMP / Metis rebellion / Oregon territory border
• Transcon RR / Western expansion / Immigrant era

(Note: BC should get some mentions - early, gold rush, transRR)
Modern (1910-present)

• WWI (Vimy=Canada as nation) / King-Byng / Depression (Winnipeg riots)
• WWII / Gouzenko / NATO / Peacekeeping
• CCF / Saskatchewan-Medicare / CPP / social solidarity?
• Silent Rev / Quebec Nat. / FLQ-War Measures / Referendum
• Budget surpluses / Afghan war / Western boom / strongest banks (recentism!)

(And it strikes me that there is an entirely different way to organize history - rather than along temporal lines, era-by-era. This would instead be on the primary themes of exploration, conquest, exploitation, habitation, politicization, development, and socializiation; with time as the secondary axis - but enough of that foolishness)

There's my take on how to divide three eras into four (possibly long) paragraphs. Actually doing it will be a challenge of course. :) Franamax (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll check the latest... :) Franamax (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the Quebec Act above? DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

History paragraphs

Analysing the current and proposed divisions here for interest, comparison, and discussion's sake. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

1. First Nations
2. Explorers and settlements
3. Conquest
4. Confederation
5. Expansion
6. Statute of Westminster
7. Patriation

Current

1. First Nations and explorers
2. New France
3. English colonies
4. Conquest and UEL
5. War of 1812 and contemporary
6. Durham Report
7. Boundary and expansion
8. Confederation
9. Macdonald/Laurier
10. WW1 and Statute of Westminster
11. CCF/Mackenzie King/WW2
12. Pearson/Trudeau, Quiet Revolution/Nationalism
13. Peacekeeping en passant, recent history

Franamax proposal

1. unwritten/aboriginal
2. contact and exploration
3. French colonization/conquest/aboriginal relations
4. British colonization/1812 War
5. Responsible Government/rail-age/border issues
6. western expansion/NWMP/Metis/border issues
7. Confederation
8. immigrant era/western provinces
9. world wars
10. economic expansion/silent revolution

Soulscanner proposal

1. Pre-European/ natives
2. Early European exploration" Vikings, Cabot, Cartier, Basques
3. French and English settlement; French Exploration
4. Colonial wars: to 1763
5. American Revolution/War of 1812/English Canada
6. Rebellions and Responsible Government
7. Western Canada and exploration
8. Confederation/MacDonald era/National Policy
9. Laurier Era/Immigration/West
10. World War I
11. Independence/Depression/CCF
12. WW II
13. Postwar baby-economy boom/Nfld (shorter paragraph)
14. Pearson/Trudeau era
15. Quebec/Quiet Revolution/Parti Quebecois/Referenda
16. Mulroney era/Meech Lake/Bloc-Reform
17. Modern era? Too recent for history?

• Perhaps 12 paragraphs, if you take an average. --soulscanner (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Natives/Cabot-Cartier/Champlain + Quebec + New France + French exploration
2. English settlement Nfld NS + exploration/French-English conflict
3. Royal Proclamation/PEI/American Revolution/Loyalists-NB-1791/1812/British immigration
4. Rebellions/Act of Union/Responsible Gov't
5. Western exploration/BC/Confederation
6. MacDonald National Policy/Tarrifs and industry/Railroads/Settlment, Metis, Manitoba Rupert's land/
7. Laurier/Western Treaties/Western Settlement-Sask+Alberta/
8. WWI + Colonial status/Vimy/Conscription Cris/Versailles/Statute of Westminister
9. Depression-CCF/WWII independent declaration/Italy,D-Day,Scheldt/Conscription crisis/Industial boom
10. Post war Nfld/Baby boom + ecomomic expansion + unions and NDP/
11. Pearson-Trudeau -flag, bilingualism, multiculturalism, Constitution+Charter, medicare
12. Quiet Revolution/PQ + Referndum I/Meech Lake - Reform - Bloc/Referendum II/Clarity Act

List of Canadian Provinces and Territories: Offical and Common Name table

The United States of America article has the following table listing the Offical and Common names of its collection of State of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States#List_of_states

Perhaps the Canada article could benefit from a table like this?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Where would the official and common names be different in Canadian provinces? Franamax (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere.

"Offical Names" are long-form names. "Common Names" are short-form names.

A long-form name does not equal a short-form name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States#List_of_states

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a State of US. Its common name is only Massachusetts.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So, specifically? Are any Canadian provinces not of the form "Province of <shortname>"? Why is this of interest to our readers? Franamax (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Franamax.

Your question

"Are any Canadian provinces not of the form "Province of <shortname>"?

is contested by several Wikipedians here.

My opinion is that ALL Canadian provinces have the form of Province of <shortname>.

I am trying to build consensus here.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

At least, this isn't leading towards Dominion of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so certain. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that kind of detail is of interest on this overview article. It may be at Provinces and territories of Canada. There are a couple of tables there already but if they all have the same title, i.e., "Province", then I don't think it's very interesting and, of course, it will require WP:Reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DoubleBlue; this type of information is best left to the daughter articles. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --soulscanner (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Daughter article?

Since we have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States#List_of_states

How about,

Canadian Provinces and Territories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Provinces_and_Territories

Well?

If I start editing and adding the

Province of <shortname>

ditty ... are people going to freak-out?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the point here. If all the provinces are of the form "Province of...", we have no new information to impart. Don, you assert that several 'pedians contest this naming - do you have specifics? Leaving aside the obvious permutations of Province/Nation of/du Quebec/Québec. Franamax (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Franamax.

Please read this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon#January_2008

All provinces (even the Province of Quebec), in my opinion, are of the form Province of <shortname>. I see no reason to deny this fact. I wish to have these long-form names listed. I am trying to reach consensus to do so.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But Province of Prince Edward Island appears sooo long. PS- I nearly collapsed writing it all out. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Don, I'm still not seeing your point. In the case of US states, some are commonwealths, some are states, some (like Hawaii) have completely different long-form names. That is germane and of interest to the reader. If all we have to say is "to get the long-form name, add 'Province of' to the short-form name", just go ahead and add that to the "Provinces of..." article. If it's a uniform conversion, it's hardly of interest to the reader and certainly doesn't need a table. If we're talking about your insistence that everything has both a long and short name, and the long form should be used - well, that issue has already been covered at some length, wouldn't you agree? Franamax (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Franamax.

No. I do not agree with your "double-talk".

I can compare the USA system of Names, with the Canadian system of Names, but I feel that it would be wasted effort on you.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. Comment on content, not on the contributor don't as per WP:NPA. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff. Don, I'm still open to your explanation of where Canadian provinces show an anomaly in the "Province of..." long/short naming convention. Franamax (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Here goes eh.

Terms of Reference (for Modern Jargon)

http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/political_types.htm

The United States of America is a Federal Republic.

The Order of Precidence (system of Ranks) is,

(i). the Country (Highest Rank)

(ii). a State of the US,

(iii). a Territory of the US,

(iv). a Dependency (Lowest Rank).

With me so far, Franamax?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Franamax isn't speaking 'double-talk'. He is quite reasonably suggesting that if the long-form names of the Provinces differ as do the long-form names of the US states, then yes, a list of the long-forms may be appropriate. But if they are all named, 'Province of N., there is no point; the formula is the same. Do you know the long-form names of the provinces (if they have long-form names)? Do they differ? If so, Franamax is conceding your idea.--Gazzster (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Nicely summarized - I wholeheartedly endorse this product and/or service :) Franamax (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The long-form names of the Provinces are,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Provinces_and_Territories

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Province of Nova Scotia,

Province of Prince Edward Island,

Province of New Brunswick,

Province of Quebec,

Province of Ontario,

Province of Manitoba,

Province of Saskatchewan,

Province of Alberta,

Province of British Columbia

they each have the Rank of a Province of Canada.

As well the long-form names the Territories are,

Territory of Nunavut,

Northwest Territories,

Yukon Territory

and they each have the Rank of a Territory of Canada.

I simply want the long-form names of the Provinces and Territories listed here at Wikipedia. They have a right to be.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, the 50 States have the long-form names of,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States#List_of_states

4 States have the Prefix of "Commonwealth of " (but the Rank of a State of the US),

Commonwealth of Kentucky,

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

Commonwealth of Virginia,

the other 46 States have the Prefix of "State of" (but the Rank of a State of the US),

State of Alabama,

State of Alaska

... to ...

State of Utah,

State of Washington.

What is good for the USA is good for Canada!

• Go #%!* yourself eh! :) NorthernThunder (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should mention the long-form names, if they have long-form names. But you haven't cited any. The internal link you refer us to doesn't mention any either. The issue is not whether it's 'good' for Canada. It's a question of whether these long-form names you refer to exist. They may do. But you haven't demonstrated that. And a glance at the Canadian Government's site [8] and the links to the provincial sites suggest there aren't any. But if you can demonstrate that there are longer-form names, you have a sympathetic audience.--Gazzster (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What ever may have been put in the US article does not mean it is best for that article nor, even if it is, that it's best for the Canadian provinces article. Please don't suffer an inferiority delusion when Canadian articles do not match articles on the US. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster.

Questions

(1). What proof is there that only short-form names apply at all levels of Government in Canada?

(2). What proof is there that only short-form names apply at all levels of Government in Australia?

(e.g., the Commonwealth of Australia is incorrect, it is only just Australia)

(3). What proof is there that ANY long-form names apply at all levels of Government in United States of America?

(e.g., the United States of America is correct, it is not only just America)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue that "United States of America" is the long form name and the title is Republic, making it the "Republic of the United States of America". DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have not said only short-form names apply. I said that, at a cursory glance, the Government website doesn't mention them. The burden of proof is not on me to prove that there are no long-names. The burden is on you to prove that there are. That is all Franamax and myself have said. We have both said we are friendly to your suggestion for a table. But you need to demonstrate what the long-forms are by referencing them.
• I have never said Australia is only known by its short-form. Of course I know it is the Commonwealth of Australia. And I can demonstrate this quite easily by referring to the Constitution, other legal documents and government sources. With a little research, you could do the same.
• I don't know what yopu mean by long-form names applying at all levels of government.--Gazzster (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster.

Where does it explicitly say that the long-form name is the Commonwealth of Australia, and not just Australia?

Let us see how you like the long-form name of your country buggered with eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here.[9] I don't understand why you're becoming aggressive. All we've done is ask for references? That can't be so hard, surely. We even said we'd back your idea!--Gazzster (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the sentence saying that the Commonwealth of Australia is its Name?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In the pre-amble to the Constitution, where the link leads.--Gazzster (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gazzster, I agree with you (i.e., that the Commonwealth of Australia is indeed the long-form name of your country). But what I am putting you through right now, is what the Wikipedians have put me through with regards to my country (i.e., the Dominion of Canada).

So where is the explicit sentence saying that the Commonwealth of Australia is its Name?

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

(Preamble)

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia. [9th July 1900]

(The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster)

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--

Well ... where?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is quickly devolving into "Dominion of Canada". Instead of attacking people who make reasonable requests for a reference, why don't you find a reference? Since you are the one proposing that the provinces have a long form, prove it. No one else here has a duty to prove that "Commonwealth of Australia" is a correct long form or to prove anything else. You are proposing a change, so it is on you to prove that the change is warranted. -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions

Don, I'd like to say welcome back, but it seems like we are going down the same road that we have gone down with you so many times before. You must accept that Wikipedia, as a community, has aright to set its own rules. Your contributions, for the most part, do not respect those rules. This is another examples:

"My opinion is that ALL Canadian provinces have the form of Province of <shortname>. I am trying to build consensus here. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions, and I will defend your right to express them on the internet, but not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, is a place for verifiable facts, and not original research or opinions. There are specific policies against what you are trying to do here.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

Wikipedia:No original research says:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Until you can present a reliable source that says explicitly that provinces and territories have official long names and official common names, all of your conjecture and argumentation above is opinion and original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 03:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he needs to show that Alberta is commonly called "Alberta", etc. -Rrius (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that AVD has been arguing, debating, and campaigning at length to include this for a very long time, and refuses to listen to the consensus that has been presented here (and elsewhere). --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree (see my comment above this subheading). Saying that someone has to prove the obvious is just the sort of thing to inspire a day or more of irrelevant process arguments, though. For some reason, Canada and any article having to do with the UK, its nations, Ireland, or relations among any of those are especially prone to such digressions. -Rrius (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I am not asking that anyone prove that Alberta is called Alberta. I am only asking that if Don wants to include in Wikipedia that Alberta also has an official longform anem, i.e., "the Province of Alberta", he must conform to Wikipedia policies on verfiability and provide reliable sources that explicitly state that this is the official long form name. No-one would disagree that Alberta is commonly called "the Province of Alberta". The question is, is this an official long-form name. If it is, it won't be difficult to provide an adequate citation.

This discussion is based on Don's long-held view that Canada has a long-form name, "the Dominion of Canada". He has provided many (mostly historical) examples of its use, but has not provided any citation indicating that it continues to be the official long-form name. He has also been frequently abusive and insulting, and has treated Wikipedians and Wikipedia policies with contempt, so we tend to be very cautious about his edits. Ground Zero | t 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Long-form names need only be official names

Don, I don't understand what you mean. The name is in the title, and mentioned often enough. Do you mean, 'where does it say that the long-form name is Commonwealth of Australia?' Well, obviously we don't need to find a statement so explicit. But if you do want one, the Central Intelligence Agency states that the 'conventional long form' of Australia's name is 'Commonwealth of Australia'.[10] So all you need to do is find an official source, such as a Constitution or other legal document, or an official database, that uses a long form, eg., 'Province of Alberta'. Shouldn't be hard. By the way, the CIA states that Canada does not have a 'conventional long-form name'. They could be wrong, I suppose. But by all means, use the long names if you can reference them.--Gazzster (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster.

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:VZO6bamFYBUJ:www.skerrys.ie/files/20071018044610_Constitutional_Chapter3.pdf+In+1989+the+Irish+Supreme+Court+rejected+an+extradition+warrant+that+used+the+name+Republic+of+Ireland&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5

[3–53] The Republic of Ireland Act 1948, s 2, states that the description of the State is “the Republic of Ireland”. A referendum would have been necessary to change the name of the State, which remains “Ireland”.

[3–54] In Ellis v O’Dea [1989] I.R. 530, Walsh J. condemned the practice of the UK courts in referring to the State in extradition warrants as “the Republic of Ireland” as opposed to “Ireland” (when issuing warrants in English), and held that by virtue of the duty of the courts and of the Gardaí to uphold the Constitution such warrants should be returned for rectification. The learned judge elaborated that while foreign courts are at liberty to issue such warrants in the foreign language, if they choose to use the English language they must refer to the state as '“Ireland”, in accordance with Art 4. The learned judge indicated that not to do so was to refuse to recognise the Constitution.

Well Gazzster...?

Does this not set-up a "double-standard"?

Hmmm ... eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what this document is, what it purpots to do, or what is your point in showing it to us. We are not talking about the Republic of Ireland or the Commonwealth of Australia. We are talking about the Canadian provinces. You continue to ignore the issue. I see nothing out of the ordinary, unreasonable or unjust in the polite request that Franamax, myself and several others have made, ie., that you reference the use of long-form names. I am trying to maintain amity with you, but if you continue to skirt around a reasonable request, I shall stop this dialogue. --Gazzster (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster.

The "Provinces" were formed in a time when the assumption of "Province of <short-form name>" was accepted fare. Canada was the "first Dominion", i.e., the proto-type, thus the most ambiguity would be present in our Constitutional documents.

I can site the "usage" of "Province of", and "Dominion of" in the older series of amendments to the British North America Acts, the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Royal Proclamation of 1921 of the Coat-of-Arms of the Dominion of Canada, the Royal Warrants (1868) of the Coat-of-Arms of the Province of Ontario, Province of Quebec, Province of New Brunswick, and the Province of Nova Scotia.

Bluntly put, after long succesions of pro-Quebec Governements the "usage" of British terminology has waned to appease the French. Alot of websites today (most actually) use short-form names to "Bi-lingualise" things needlessly. The corresponding French-languages translations exist ... but not are used.

Gazzster, you do not need to repond, I find the "fun" of this conversation has ended ... on my end at least.

Take care, and best wishes eh ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you want to end this, and I appreciate your well-wishes. I do feel however that I need to comment, and may I do so? You have expressed an opinion, i.e., the long-form names of Canadian Provinces are not used, to 'appease' the 'French'(by which I suppose you mean French-speaking Canadians). So your belief that these long-form names exist seems to be, on your own admission, a matter of opinion, not fact. I am not making a judgement one way or the other. I am simply repeating what I hear you saying.This is not the forum to air your opinions. We cannot edit based on your, or anyone elses opinions. This is an encyclopedia. We need facts.You might want to discover the present status of these names and come back to this issue. With research, you may even discover that you're right, without having to resort to what appears to be francophobic sentiment.--Gazzster (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This martyrdom stuff really takes the cake. I understand you are frustrated about the "Dominion of Canada" issue, but responding to simple requests for sources with irrelevant challenges about the US, Australia, and Ireland is silly. In just a few minutes, I was able to find several instances of "Province of Ontario" at the Government of Ontario website. This one and this one are just two examples. Not only am I open to the possibility that the long forms you stated are correct, but I also figure it's more likely than not. However, what I think and what you assert are not enough to meet Wikipedia standards. Moreover, it is for you to supply sufficient references to drive consensus, not the rest of us. With as easy as it was for me to find one province, it shouldn't be that hard to establish the rest. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As far as I can tell Don, no-one in this discussion is trying to thwart you!--Gazzster (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that in those instances "Province of" is a title, and not part of the name. Stephen Hawking's name is not "Stephen Hawking, Ph.D", but rather just "Stephen Hawking". Ph.D is a title, not part of the name. "Mr." isn't part of a name, neither is "Sir", and neither is "Queen". Descriptive titles every one. Same with Province of. Gopher65_talk 02:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also argue that even when a country has a longform name, that longform is NOT "The Country of Canada", or whatever. Provinces are no different. If they have longforms, then they have longforms. *shrug* But Province of is not part of it. I'm not against longform names in principle, I just don't think that they exist in this case. Gopher65_talk 02:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You would have to explain what on Earth that means here. Court documents in Quebec say "Canada, Province of Quebec". The amendment to the Constitution Act in 2001 changed the "Province of Newfoundland" to the "Province of Newfoundland and Labrador". It seems clear that these are parts of the name. I guess I have no idea what a "title" for a province or country would be, so you'll have to explain how that differs from a long form name for a province or country. The United States of America is the long form for that country. There is no such usage as the "Republic of the United States of America" or any such. The "State of Illinois" is the long form name for that American state, which is used to discuss it's government. The "state of Illinois" is a description of place governed by it. Thus, if one were to exceed the speed limit in the state of Illinois, one could find oneself cited for speeding by the State of Illinois. Of course, "Illinois" is used instead of each of those in many situations. In the same way, there are references out there to the "province of Ontario" and the "Province of Ontario". The examples for Canadian provinces seem to be similar to US states. Though inconsistent for both countries, the lowercase version seems to apply to the place generally, its territory, and its people. The uppercase version seems to apply to the place as a legal entity or government. I don't know which of these fits into the "title" paradigm. I also don't know where there is any source for a concept of "Province of", "State of", "Republic of", or "Kingdom of" being titles and not parts of names. -Rrius (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Rrius.

You are correct ... "Province of ", "State of", "Kingdom of", "United States of", "United Provinces of", "Republic of", are apart of long-form names.

The "old way" to say long-form names was the legal phrase "style and title".

For example when the District of Maine separated from the Commonwealth of Massachussetts and became the State of Maine in 1820, the pre-amble of the Maine Constitution said the following,

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/Constitution2005.htm

We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.

The style means the individual words.

The title means all the words put together as a whole.

The style and title means the long-form name.

People confuse "title" with a "feudal rank".

A "King" is not a "title".

A "King" is a feudal rank, right below an "Emporer", but above a "Prince".

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from AVDon's patient efforts to educate us on proper terminology, I'm not sure of what the point of this discussion is, as it applies to the Canada article. Here are the points I see:

• AVD originally drew our attention to a table for US States, showing their long-form and short-form names. In the US case, this is distinctive, since some long-names are "Commonwealth of <shortname>", some are "State of <shortname>", some have completely variant <longname>/<shortname>'s. This is of relevance to the reader of articles about US states. That, however, is not our concern, instead we ask here about the relevance to Canada. If the uniform convention for our purposes is that a longname can be derived from a shortname by the simple rule of "Province of <shortname>" or "Territory of <shortname>", that is hardly worthy of a table and can be mentioned as an uncontroversial fact in any of our subsidiary articles. I've yet to see a reliable reference indicating that this uniform convention doesn't apply.
• Moving on, we encounter the question of whether provinces and territories do indeed have longform names. I'm quite prepared to concede that they do, based on some references provided above, and on various documents I've had the good fortune to have served on me by various provincial entities. In fact, I plan to exceed the speed limit and commit various frauds in the next few weeks, just to collect some reliable documentation on this. :) Again though, so what? It seems uncontroversial that "Ontario" would refer to itself as "Province of Ontario" - though I can't lay hands on the official road map right now that would prove the point. Anyway, yes, it can certainly be referenced that provinces of Canada refer to themselves as "Province of..." - I'd be willing to bet that sources can be found for all provinces, why is this a point of discussion?
• Moving further, do we have an obligation to report that longform names differ from shortform names? This seems to be AVD's main point, that we must respect vexillogical principles - so in that case, we need a reliable source saying that "the official name (and name for purpose of service of documents) of the province of Ontario is 'Province of Ontario'". Fine, dig those sources up and add them to the province articles - it may indeed be encyclopedic information, although I'm at a loss as to why a Canadian province wouldn't call itself a Province.
• And please, why is this discussion being carried out at the talk page of the Canada article? Isn't there a WikiProject where this can be more fruitfully discussed? I see no circumstance where we will decide to add long/short-naming information into this overview article. Why is this here? Franamax (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Franamax.

Conventions for Long-Form and Short-Form Names of Countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventions_for_Long-Form_and_Short-Form_Names_of_Countries

I'll "attempt" to contribute an article on this. If "the mob" don't kill it in "its cradle".

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

First history "section"

Working off of what Franamax and I spoke about above, I've taken a stab at condensing the first of the three "sections"; that pertaining to pre-colombian history, exploration, colonisation, the conquest, and the War of 1812. It is 397 words, compared to the present 467 words for the existing part of the history section that covers the same periods. Definitely a start, but could maybe be trimmed more. --G2bambino (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A condensed version

Traditionally, Canada's Aboriginal peoples hold that they have resided on their lands since the beginning of time, while archaeological studies support a human presence in the northern Yukon from 26,500 years ago, and in southern Ontario from 9,500 years ago. The first Europeans to arrive were the Vikings, who settled briefly at L'Anse aux Meadows around 1000 AD, after which there was no further trans-Atlantic contact until John Cabot explored Canada's east coast for England in 1497, followed by French explorer Jacques Cartier in 1534. In the early 17th century, Samuel de Champlain founded the first permanent European settlements at Port Royal and Quebec City, from which the French colonists extensively settled the Saint Lawrence River valley and the present-day Maritimes, while French fur traders and Catholic missionaries explored the Great Lakes, Hudson Bay, and the Mississippi watershed to Louisiana. Concurrently, the English set fishing outposts on Newfoundland and established the Thirteen Colonies to the south.

Due to the close proximity of these two European powers, a series of wars over both territory and the fur trade erupted between 1689 and 1763, such as the French and Iroquois Wars, the four Intercolonial Wars, and the Seven Years' War. Via the peace treaties that concluded these conflicts, Acadia and most of New France was ceded to Britain, which then, through the 1763 Royal Proclamation, carved the Province of Quebec out of New France, annexed Cape Breton Island to Nova Scotia, and placed all the former French territories under common law; six years later, St. John's Island became a separate colony. By 1774, the Quebec Act reestablished civil law in Quebec and affirmed the right of its population to practice their Catholic faith, as well as expanding the province's territory to the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley, all of which helped to fuel the American Revolution. From that conflict, some 50,000 persons loyal to the Crown fled to Canada, where new regions were created to accommodate them: New Brunswick was split from Nova Scotia, and Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada.

The latter two became the main front in the War of 1812, and the defence of them contributed to a sense of unity among British North Americans. With British sovereignty reaffirmed, large scale immigration from the British Isles began soon after, and, by the early nineteenth century, the timber industry surpassed the fur trade in importance.

Comments

• a) I like some of the changes in paragraph I. Could we remove the Vikings? They are intersting and important, but not as important as Cabot and Cartier. The English and French would ulitmately stay, after all. We'll need to move it to another article if we decide it's referenced. b) Could we focus and gain consensus on the first paragraph first? There's too much to comment on otherwise. c) Could we remove the pictures from the working text? It's a little distracting otherwise. Thanks --soulscanner (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. It's important to mention that Cartier explored the Saint Lawrence River. --soulscanner (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 1

Aboriginal traditions maintain that indigenous people have resided on their lands since the beginning of time, while archaeological studies support a human presence in the northern Yukon from 26,500 years ago, and in southern Ontario from 9,500 years ago. Contemporary European colonization began when John Cabot claimed Canada's Atlantic coast for England in 1497 and Jacques Cartier explored the Saint Lawrence River for France in 1534. --soulscanner (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

1) I disagree with the removal of mention of the Viking settlement; taking it out leaves the impression that the English and French were the first European settlers. 2) "Contemporary" means present day, as far as I know. 3) This paragraph is too short if we are going to stick to Franamax's and my idea above of only three paragraphs per "section". 4) Something about the St. Lawrence and Cartier does seem to be of value. --G2bambino (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've actually given over to the idea of 4 paras per 3 divisions, as evidenced by by collapsed blue-bit above.

• Not sure about "Aboriginal traditions...time, while" - mythology should not be conflated with history. "since the beginning of time" is true within its own context, but not within Canada - History. Thus, starting with "Archaeological studies...."
• Brief overview of the tribal organization / pre-contact society? (a separate but interlinked society with extensive trade contacts whose interlinks would rapidly spread disease Guns, Germs and Steel J. Diamond)
• Viking failed settlement and Basque fishery are of note.
• It's difficult to accept that "colonization" began with either of Caboto or Cartier - they were explorers and claimers, but not colonizers. Wouldn't Champlain be the first true colonizer? In my revised 3x4 scheme, that's paragraph 2. Franamax (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the three of you above. I haven't had the time or mood lately to consider exactly how I'd divide the history section up but I like the work that's started here. I agree with soulscanner that it can be reduced further. I agree with G2bambino that the Vikings should be mentioned though very briefly. Perhaps something like: "European contact began with a brief Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows around 1000 AD followed by John Cabot, who claimed Canada's Atlantic coast for England in 1497 and Jacques Cartier, who claimed the Saint Lawrence River area for France in 1534." I agree with Franamax about leaving out the First Nations creation story and I'd like the first sentence to mention the First Nations as more than just a presence but active trading societies. Unfortunately, our Aboriginal peoples in Canada article is seriously lacking. DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for the commentary. Everyone raises good points. It looks like every sentence is going to require extensive discussion. Perhaps an Rfc is in order to broaden the perspective? Do we tackle the three topics in parallel or one at a time?--soulscanner (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I did add a note at WP:CWNB#Requests for comment a few days ago. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal traditions

I'm open to rewording the phrase on aboriginal peoples, but archeologists and historians have been respecting the oral traditions of First Nation and Inuit sources for over 40 years See source from Archives of Canada. The Oral traditions and aboriginal perspectives need to be taken into account for a modern, scientific survey that gives a complete account of modern research into Aboriginal history. in Canada, these pespectives are also given considerable legal weight. Unless someone can find some modern academic or legal source that explicitly rejects the use of oral aboriginal traditions from scholarly research, I see no reason for deleting this phrase. --soulscanner (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't any problem with the oral traditions or giving the First Nations perspective but I don't think it's most valuable in this context. What I'd like to see as the first sentence is a description of what society was like in Canada before contact rather than debating when and how they might have arrived. The First Nations people had been in Canada for tens of thousands of years hunting, gathering, and some farming. They also had extensive trade routes throughout the Americas. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My cavil on the aboriginal tradition bit is not to deny oral history, just that "since the beginning of time" is objectively untrue in the "History" sense - while remaining true in the mythological sense. We could just as easily say that it all started in 4004 BC, which would be equally inappropriate for a section discussing known facts. Franamax (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Archaeological studies indicate a human presence in the northern Yukon from 26,500 years ago, and in southern Ontario from 9,500 years ago. <refs> The aboriginal population consisted of subsistence dwellers organized into clans and tribes, with extensive trade networks. <need refs> Franamax (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Vikings + Basques

I agree these are of note. I also agree that attempts to use "Contemporary" to account for them is somewhat lame. How do we condense the section on early European exploration without implying that Cabot and Cartier were the first European explorers? The suggestions so far do not condense the section considerably. I'm speaking here as the editor who added these to the article. Footnotes? A better word than contemporary? Or do we absolutely need explicit mention of Viking settlers and Basque Whalers? --soulscanner (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously they are of note, history-wise, but I don't see them as particularly important in this overview as they had little if any lasting effect. I think a passing mention of the Viking settlement is needed so as to not misrepresent that Cabot and Cartier were the first. The Basque whalers, as I see it, had even less impact and need not be mentioned at all here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary does not mean present day, it means at the same time but I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that word anyway. My suggestion was to re-word it somewhat as I suggested above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more about Basque fishing as opposed to whaling, though they may have set up rendering stations for whaling also. Cod (M. Kurlansky) ISBN 0-676-97111-3 pussyfoots around the topic that Basque fishers were catching lots of fish from somewhere and I've seen that mentioned elsewhere. The Viking bit is easily sourceable, the Basque connection maybe less so. Franamax (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The earliest known European contacts are the Vikings, who briefly established a settlement, and Basque fishermen exploiting the abundant resources off the East shore of Canada.<ref><Basque ref>(+ better wording & expand in footnotes) Franamax (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cartier and Cabot

Cartier did try a settlement at Stadacona in 1535. It failed, mostly due to bad relations with the natives and a brutal winter. I think the main point is that they made documented claims on the territory that stuck (however tenuous at the time). The Vikings and Basques did not. Evidence of their presence is in the form of archeology and oral traditions. If we were forced to shorten this section, I'd vote to keep these two over the Basques and Vikings. --soulscanner (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cabot and Cartier, I think, are very important. While we mightn't put much importance in someone planting a flag and sailing away today, it was taken more seriously then and trespassers from other lands would know that they risked a battle if they dared to counter-claim it. The idea of "ownership" by France and England shaped the future development of North America. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly apropos, just throwing this in: "European contact devastated the existing population through transmission of disease to which the native peoples had no immunity" (ref. Guns, Germs and Steel J. Diamond). Too much detail? - but certainly explains why the explorers found "an empty land". No placement in mind, just throwing it out there. Franamax (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is too much. I keep getting tempted to have an entire paragraph on the First Nations pre-colonial period but to keep this section manageable, I think we aim for mentioning key points in history with links to articles for more information. That's why our article on Aboriginal peoples in Canada is so disappointing. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yow! That's an article that could use another 50KB of editing - it's missing a whole lot of the story. If we can all get through this little project, I'd be happy to take that as the next one. Agree with your other points. Franamax (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 12

Paragraph 12 reads funny. It's unclear what "this growth" refers to. I think the esentence should be wikified as well. Any other possible improvements?

Canada's post war period saw Newfoundland join Confederation in 1949, population growth driven by a baby boom and European immigration, and unprecedented prosperity. This growth, combined with the policies of successive Liberal governments, led to the emergence of a new Canadian identity, marked by the adoption of the current Maple Leaf Flag in 1965, the implementation of official bilingualism in 1969, and official multiculturalism in 1971.--soulscanner (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

minor typo in History section

In the History section, the phrase "ruled that" is not separated from the following word.

Bob (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed - thanks for the notice. AlexiusHoratius 22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

factual issue

In the section on law it states that only Quebec and Ontario do not use the RCMP, however, Newfoundland and Labrador also have a provincial police force (Royal Newfoundland Constabulary). :w (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good question but Newfoundland does use the RCMP for local policing in most of the province and the RNC in major metropolitan areas. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And the RCMP does operate in Ontario in its guise of tackling organised crime, money crime etc. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Dominion of Canada,

http://www.rnc.gov.nl.ca/

has the Police Service of Northern Ireland post-2001 ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Service_of_Northern_Ireland

as the historical linkage to the Royal Irish Constabulary for Irish Free State, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the Province of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland..

All Provinces and Territories in the Dominion of Canada have active units of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The Province of Ontario has the Ontario Provincial Police ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Provincial_Police

but the RCMP still patrols Federal Roads and Inter-provincal Bridges.

The Province du Quebec has the Surete du Quebec (Quebec Provincial Police) ...

but again the RCMP still patrols Federal Roads and Inter-provincal Bridges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Provincial_Police

The Province of New Brunswick has a highway patrol ...

http://members.shaw.ca/wolfpatch/NBHP/History/

but the RCMP does EVERTHING ELSE.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this about the Dominion thing? GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Howdy.... no actually

Errata: Peculiar Tid-bit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Provincial_Police#OPP_in_pop_culture

The Beatles John Lennon had an OPP Patch on his Sgt. Pepper Uniform. Strange, but true....

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the article "in rural areas of all provinces except Ontario and Quebec, policing is contracted to the federal [RCMP]", which appears to be a factually true statement. What action is required? Do you propose a different wording? Franamax (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Party Leader

In section 3 on government and politics, it is stated Stéphane Dion is still the leader of the liberal party. However, this is not so. Mr. Dion resigned on December 8, 2008 and Michael Ignatieff was named the interim leader on December 10, 2008. Multitasker347 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Noted & updated. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This leads me to ask, with some trepidation, whether it may be time to remove protection. It has been semi-protected for 9 months due to vandalism. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've no prob, with that. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It can always be re-protected, but the default state of a Wikipedia article is "anyone can edit". Franamax (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and requested unprotection but the first reply was a rather surprising no from an admin who apparently feels this article should never be unprotected. I have my doubts that this article can stand long periods of unprotection but that is the spirit of the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I presume that other admins may feel differently. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I believe that more good could be done by unprotecting the page than harm. Even if it is a mistake, we can always go back and protect it. Multitasker347 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups/Information Bar

The ethnic groups on the information bar is very innaccurate and we cannot rely on World Fact Book. First of 6% of Canada is not African, Arab, and Asian. South Asians (4%), Chinese (4%), only these two have already surpassed that supposed combined 6% mark. Also, 16 percent of Canadians are visible minorities, and 3 percent are Aboriginals, meaning that approximately 80% of Canadians are European, not 66%. The mixed category of 26% is vague; its obviously not mixed race, but mixed ethnicities like English and Italian; or Scottish and German. Just something for you to consider. Statcan has good tables!!! Galati (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Galati

I agree. Statscan may have the 2006 census figures published already, and these should be used if you can find them. I haven't checked the status of the statistics on this page, though. --soulscanner (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Quebecois nation" a notable topic?

Please comment at RfC posted at Quebecois article. --soulscanner (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)