Talk:Canada

Template:Canada selected article This article is hereby recognized as a recipient of the FCGA Award.

Archives
2003–2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 2006 7 8 9 10 2007 11 12 13 14 15 2008 16 17 18 2009 19 2010 20 2011 21 2012 22 2013 23 2015–present 24 25 26 27 Discussion of Canada's official name Canada's name Official Name 1 Future TFA paragraph Main Page

"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)

"Five parties have had representation in the federal parliament since 2006 elections: the Conservative Party of Canada (governing party), the Liberal Party of Canada (Official Opposition), the New Democratic Party (NDP) and Bloc Québécois."

The Green Party won no federal representation in 2006. They gained their first MP on August 30, 2008, after former Liberal MP Blair Wilson failed in his July 2008 attempt to be readmitted into the Liberal caucus. To suggest that the Green Party has "had representation in the federal parliament since 2006" is patently false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.216.165 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the intent of the sentence is obviously that five parties have had representation in that time, not necessarily the entire time. It may not be completely clear whether it's the entire time or just a portion of the time and that could be re-written but it's not immediately obvious to me how and, with less than 2 weeks before this sentence will be completely re-written, hardly seems worth the time to figure it out. At any rate, it is less false than the previous revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&diff=235533356&oldid=235469310 Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also somewhat misleading, in that Wilson joined the Green Party while Parliament was not in session, and then the election was called scant days later — thus he never actually sat in Parliament as a Green MP, which would be the bottom line for saying that the Greens actually had representation in the most recent Parliament. It would be far more accurate to say that four parties were represented in Parliament, and then add a separate sentence stating that an independent MP joined the Green Party just before the election. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks is not enough time to modify a single sentence that presents a falsehood? You can't be serious. I'd do it myself in less than five minutes, if I had the option.68.151.216.165 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually said the statement has some basis in fact, though somewhat misleading, and not important enough to me to consider better wording. If you have the gift of writing and time to consider it, I welcome your contribution. Please put your suggested phrasing here. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest the following wording: "Four parties had representatives elected to the federal parliament in the 2006 elections: the Conservative Party of Canada (governing party), the Liberal Party of Canada (Official Opposition), the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Québécois. A sitting MP joined the Green Party of Canada a few days before the calling of the 2008 election, giving the party it's first federal representative." DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks better to me. Go for it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yukon uses hydroelectricity.

After reading this wiki, I noticed that Yukon Territory was omitted in the list of provinces who employ hydroelectricity as a major source or electric power. Perhaps this could be added?

Refs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukon - "Economy... follows in importance, along with hydroelectricity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukon_Energy_Corporation - "YEC has developed a grid that connects hydro facilities in Whitehorse (Schwatka Lake Dam - 40 MW from four wheels, the fourth added in 1983), Aishihik Lake - 30 MW, and the YECL facilities at Fish Lake near Whitehorse. The communities on the "Whitehorse-Aishihik-Faro" grid include Whitehorse, Haines Junction, Champagne, Carcross, Tagish, Marsh Lake, Johnson's Crossing, Teslin, Carmacks, Faro, and Ross River." "The Yukon has no connections to the continental power grid, therefore, YEC cannot sell to or buy from networks"

http://www.yukonenergy.ca/services/renewable/hydro/ - "facilities have the ability to generate 75 megawatts (75 million watts) of power. That’s more than enough to currently serve all our customers."

http://www.yukonenergy.ca/services/non-renewable/ - "we rely on hydro for our energy supply"

Thanks,

Tyler

Food

In Canada thier are many cultural local deliciose dishes as the tourtier, shepereds pie, raindeer , bofulo, salmon, troute, caribo, moose, corn and diferent kinds of meat pie. For desert canaians also cook my pies and make tasty mapel sweets ect... The majority of these kinds of dishes or foods are french Canadian, Indian and English canadians. Canada is know'n for tipical dishes and go food at good resterants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.153.14 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(Tylerfm (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Ethnic Groups

In the infobox it says "Ethnic Groups: 28% British, 23% French, 3.5% Aboriginal peoples, 47% other", while in the article, under Demographics, it says: "The largest ethnic group is English (21%), followed by French (15.8%), Scottish (15.2%), Irish (13.9%), German (10.2%), Italian (5%), Chinese (4%), Ukrainian (3.6%), and First Nations (3.5%)".

Without getting into the politics of the 'British Isles', Scottish + English here = 36.2% alone. Which is right? --taras (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi taras. Please ignore ArmchairVexillologistDon, he has his own issues with Canada.

The point is that establishing ethnicity is not an easy thing to do. As some people said below, it depends how you measure it and what question you ask, especially since people can consider themselves to have more than one ethnicity. It's probable that both are approximately right, depending on the date. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello taras. This multiple spliting of the "ethnic-numbers" is a tiresome old misleading game, to keep up the impression that French-Canada is above 20%, and English-Canada is below 80%, of what Canada really is.

The "ethnic-numbers" are meaningless. The reality is that 80% of Canada speaks English (i.e., English-Canada) and less than 20% of Canada speaks French (i.e., French-Canada).

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.242 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Armchair, instead of going into a diatribe about a pet peeve of yours, you could have just answered the question. On the Canadian census forms you can check off as many nationalities as you want. So if you are 1/4 Irish, 1/16 First Nations, and 0.00000000001% English, and all the rest Brazilian, then you can check off all four, or none. Your Englishness will count toward the total number of English people by just as much as someone who is 100% English, and only checks that box.

Or you can check off "Canadian", which many people do. In short, it's a nearly meaningless statistic due to the way it is gathered. All that information tells you is how people perceive themselves — which is why it isn't totally useless. If you have someone who is 1/4 First Nations and 3/4 German and they only check off "First Nations" (or vise versa), then you learn something. Gopher65_talk 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gopher65.

What country are you from eh?

You sure do not know anything about Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.18 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya AVD. Why don't ya create a new account & inform the Administrators? That way, they'll delete you old account. Pressto: New account (and new password) & you're OK to go. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Canada, and I've both filled out (multiple) census surveys and looked at the results, so say what you will. I've also read your posts on various Canada related discussions Armchair, and your opinions are universally uninformed. I assume that you are Canadian, and I'm honestly flabbergasted as to how someone can live here and know as little about the country, its political system, and its history as you appear to.

As to the particular question that was asked, and my answer, here is the proof: 2001 Canadian Census Questionnaire. Note Question 17, which is about the "origins of the person’s ancestors": "To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person’s ancestors belong?". It adds: "Specify as many groups as applicable". So. I'm right, and you're wrong, and there is proof.

But I don't know why I bothered to link that, since you never accept proof in any other argument. You just go on and on and on and on, and eventually everyone else just gets sick of telling you that you're wrong, at which point you decide that you've won the argument. Gopher65_talk 03:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gopher65.

I am actually very well informed on the "proper-history" of Canada (not the "politically-correct" homogenized crap the Government peddles today).

I was born, and I live in the,

Dominion of Canada,

Province of Ontario,

County of Ottawa-Carleton,

City of Ottawa.

Well then Gopher65, whereabouts do you "hail-from" within Canada eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.141.26 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What's that got to do with anything, Don? Please discuss article content, not the personal history of other editors. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

AVD, how come ya don't create a new account & have your old one deleted (seeing as you've forgotten your password)? GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment about abuse I was about to say, when an IP impersonates a user, in this case, ArmchairVexillologistDon, there is not proof, and that is likely abuse. Any jerk can say they are ArmchairVexillologistDon, and may have. Can't any user that forgot their password have it emailed to their email address? Either way, I would strongly suggest that this IP editor quit claiming (and misleading others) that he is a registered user, or I will personally report it as abuse. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I too am growing suspicious; as my repeated suggestions continue to be ignored. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay.

Yes, this is "me". I have interacted with you for quite sometime. I am very comfortable interacting with you. I am a stubborn SOB (with a good heart). My computer (and my big screen) were stolen last month. I am plenty upset about it. In mid January 2008, my home high-speed internet account was cut off. I am stubborn, but I am also lazy. I want to keep my ArmchairVexillologistDon handle. But I don't trust Admins (except SlimVirgin).

Take care, and best wishes,

Don

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.182 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message on the IP users talk page. I would suggest that the next time a message is left with the "dual" signature, you report it to the vandalism desk. As for the content of the discussions, I haven't been paying any attention (from texas, not canada) and the content is irrelevant to the abuse. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pharmboy.

I am ArmchairVexillologistDon. I was banned for a whole year after tussling with a user-name that I am not supposed to mention.

Anyways, since you have seen fit to insert yourself into "this", perhaps you can useful. Here is my diliema, stated below ...

(i). I want to keep my old handle (i.e., ArmchairVexillologistDon).

(ii). I have forgetten my password "eons ago",

(iii). My original high-speed internet account got cut off mid Jan. 2008,

(iv). My computer (and big screen) got stolen a month ago.

I only trust SlimVirgin as an Admin.

So where do I go from here in "your-opinion" eh?

Don

134.117.137.182 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Having seen AVD's edits over the last couple of years, I have little doubt it is him. It would take a remarkable imitator to copy his writing style. Don, can you not go to Special:UserLogin and click the "E-mail new password" button? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Howdy DoubleBlue.

It is nice to hear from you indeed. Thank you very much for the "vote-of-confidence" with regards to "me-being-me". I appreciate it alot indeed.

With regards to e-mailing me-self a new password, I can't do that. My old "Wikipedia e-mail address" was a clone of my sympatico.ca account. That got "the chop" back in mid-January 2008.

I have a yahoo.com account, but my Wikipedia user-name is not linked to it.

Am I stuck with GoodDay's Idea (i.e., making a new user-name)...?

(BTW, thank you for the suggestion GoodDay, I appreciate it indeed.)

Take care, and best wishes, DoubleBlue,

Don,

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.65 (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Don, I'm going to respond at User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Languages mixed with ethnic groups

You guys have 'languages spoken' mixed up with 'ethnic groups'. Canada does not have official ethnicities... Never in its history.. please take that part off... that is a eurocentric/thirdworld way of analysing canada... that kind of mentality does not apply to this country..

You can have a section or article on % or census reports on ethnicities in this country... but you cant pick a few to being the legitimate ones...

Jurisprudent (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was my image removed?

I posted a photograph of a rally in support of Hezbolla in the "government and politics" section. Within a few mins it was removed. Sure, Hezbolla isn't part of Canada's government, but a rally in support of Hezbolla definitely falls under the "politics" category imho. Keverich1 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I removed this because it seemed like you were trying to make a point with the edit. It may be reasonable to use a picture of a rally to show that Canada has freedom of expression that allows demonstrations, but of the many thousands of demonstrations that occur why was support of Hezbolla chosen? The Middle East is not a big part of Canadian politics; would an environmental demonstration have been better? Maybe you could explain a bit more about why you think this image was appropriate for an article about Canada? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to give to the readers a deeper and more profound understanding of Canadian politics. You see, I came across this image by chance while reading an article about Middle East, and it made very strong impression on me. I think this picture will make strong impression on others too. Most people have very specific view of Canada as calm and even boring country, but this photo could add a whole new dimension to this. I also think that this picture serves best to prove that Canada has ultimate freedom of expression. I cant imagine people in the USA marching in support of Hezbolla. Nor can I imagine leaders of an opposition party marching under Hezbollah flags in the US.Keverich1 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, try adding it back. I won't remove it again. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be a relevant and useful photograph in an article on Canada-Middle East relations, but it really doesn't belong in an introductory summary of Canadian politics. I'm not suggesting that it can't be used at all, but it should really only be used in articles that actually give a context for why it's there, and a three-paragraph summary of the basic structure of Canadian governance doesn't do that. It's appropriate in articles on Islam in Canada, Canadian relations with the Middle East, that kind of thing. But here, it's just kind of contextless and unhelpful, because the article doesn't even glance on that subject at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, such an image and caption would give undue weight to a relatively minor aspect of Canadian politics. As has been stated, information about the freedom to congregate and freedom of speech is appropriate and desirable. To demonstrate that with such a specific example, which occurs with rarity in Canada, is much less appropriate; that information belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia, not an introductory article about the country. Mindmatrix 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to underline and support the points of Bearcat and Mindmatrix. It is Undue weight on an overview article such as this. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

SPECIAL FEATURES OF CANADA Canada,too,has a number of uniquefeatures.East of Alaska lies the Yukon(YOO kahn) Territory of Canada.Mount logan,Canada's highest peak, is here.it is part of the Coast Mountains, which stretch south alog the Pacific almost to the United States border. East of the inteior Plains lies the Canadian Shield, a region of ancient rock covered by a thin layer of soil that covers about half of Canada, where few people live. Southeast of the shield are the St. Lawrence Lowlands, home to more than half of the country's population.While these fertile lowlands produce about one third of the country's crops, the region is also Canada's manfacturing center —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.106.46 (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Geopolitical Map Requires Revision

Hello,

The geopolitical image of Canada's borders is wrong in regards to the Arctic borders. Canada has not used Sector Theory (pie wedge) to claim its borders as it has limited validation in international law. In 1986 Prime Minister Mulroney formally adopted straight baselines around the Arctic Archipelago, which greatly alters the maritime borders, for instance Canada does not claim sovereignty to the North Pole anymore.

This is a common problem as most government of Canada maps still portray sector theory maps. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does explain baselines here:

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/canadasoceans-oceansducanada/marinezones-zonesmarines-eng.htm

I tried to google a straight baseline map of Canada with little luck, and unfortunately I am not Wiki savvy. I'm hoping someone might be willing to tackle this......

This ties into the whole Arctic sovereignty dispute.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see that people like to have evidence for these things. There's an issue of the Canadian Military Journal that dealt with the Arctic... For the faults of sector theory and Canada's adoption of straight baselines (particularly the last half of p.35), see Kilaby pp 34-36.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo6/no4/doc/north-nord-01-eng.pdf

And Charron that discusses how straight baselines were applied pp.43-44

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo6/no4/doc/north-nord-02-eng.pdf

They're both great backgrounders for understanding border issues in the North

Thank again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe you are correct but I haven't a clue on how to make a map that reflects that. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice map! --soulscanner (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to upload a different map? I've seen many maps that show all the provinces and simply do not use a northern border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups?!?!

As a graduate of political science, and now a third year law student specialising in constitutional law, i believe that the 'Ethnic Groups' box should be removed as it does not represent Canada. There are hundreds of ethnic groups in canada. Interestling enough whoever put that there put aboriginals last and all the european ones first. Canada has two official languages, english and french, along side the aboriginal ones. But there is absolutely no official ethnicity or race in Canada. That is lingo used on the other side of the atlantic...

If this was an article on Iraq, Rwanda, or even European countries such as France and germany, it would be worth discussing. But there is no way that box should be left there. If you really want it there than that list should have much much more ethnicities on there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurisprudent (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that the figures quoted are from the official Canadian census, so in that sense there is an 'official' ethnicity. It is true that ethnicity is not a matter of law, like it was in South Africa, but is based on self-identification; that is also the the case "the other side of the Atlantic". In either case the ethnicity of Canadians, even if mostly by self-identification, is useful. And the ordering is by the size of the group. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the list you actually removed was clearly wrong and unreferenced, and didn't reflect Canada's actual ethnicities. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported claims in government section

There are two statements in the goverment and politics section that remain unsupported by sources: in conjunction with the statement "such actions would lack democratic legitimacy coming from an unelected institution" are the elaborations "successive Canadian governments" and "have long maintained." Neither of the sources at the end of the entire sentence seem to support such assertions; at least, not the quoted sections in the footnotes. --G2bambino (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the quotes from the references provided. They clearly support both claims. That's 1RR.

If you do not like the wording, please propose an alternative wording here that reflects the meaning of these quotes. Clearly, there are important voices in Canada that do not accept the GG's authority. I'll gladly accept a rewording, but let's use the discussion page for this. Most of all, do not remove these quotes and sources again. --soulscanner (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be reworded. Of course it was been maintained at least as long as King-Byng Affair. I don't know that successive governments have necessarily mentioned it though they undoubtedly have not changed the status quo, thus in a way, maintain it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The CBC Zolf piece pretty explicitly says "long-held precedent" (King-Byng) and "Since then the Liberal view" (Liberals having formed the government once or twice - and successively - since 1926). How much more sourcing is needed, the source is online for the reader to decide for themselves. Maybe some rewording. Franamax (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, give the rewording a shot, but the Zolf quote says that it is the well known Liberal view, meaning King, Saint Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, Chretien, and Martin governments all maintained this view. This is a complex issue that hasn't been important since the 1920's. It might be important now that we have an infant minority government, so it may be that the controversy will repeat itself. The main thing is that this view be fairly weighted. It is by no means marginal. The monarchist view might be, though. It's good to be able to discuss this civilly for a change. --soulscanner (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, how many ways can you split a hair? "...governing parties have long maintained..."? "some governing parties"? "a governing party"? If the Conservatives were denied a writ by the GG, they'd adopt the same view - they just haven't yet. (Like, say, if the GG 42-odd days ago had said "no, you're breaking your own law about fixed dates") The only problem I can see is "successive", which might imply "continuous" - which is undoubtedly true, but we got no source see, just the plain fact that it's obvious isn't enough. Other than my lame suggestions above, I got nuthin'. Franamax (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but that would be mostly speculation and you'd have to comb through some recent legal journals to back this up; believe me, I've tried to find sources that say this. Seeing that this is a controversial issue on this page (although less controversial now that measures have been applied to assure a more convivial debate), I think we need to be very precise here. --soulscanner (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's avoid speculation and theorising; we don't know for sure what positions the governing parties maintained on the the Governor General's ability to exercise her constitutional powers. I can give an alternate wording a try, but I'm in the midst of cleaning up an article right now, and may be off tomorrow to somewhere with very poor internet connection. I'll see what I can come up with, though. PS- the 1RR applies to Canadian monarchy and Royal Family articles, Soulscanner. --G2bambino (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Dubious}}? Do you seriously question these facts or are you simply requesting better cites? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

G2, when you mention your 1RR restriction, do you mean this, where it says "all Canadian monarchy related articles (generally speaking)"? Generally speaking, you are making edits concerning the role of the monarchy in Canada. Are you narrowly interpreting "generally", or do you have some other restriction in mind? Franamax (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't offer you clarification on that; by my view, this isn't a monarchy related article. What's "dubious" - for lack of a better term - is the voracity of the claim in the article; it may not be as solid as the present wording makes out. Is there some other tag that would be appropriate? It hopefully won't be there very long, anyway. --G2bambino (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Dubious}} is a statement you suspect is untrue. {{Fact}} requests a citation for the statement. I also suggest that the edit war over tags is both lame and unsightly. How about just discussing a solution? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

and though the first part is in response to G2, the final suggestion is thrown out in general. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"successive Canadian governments have long maintained" ->

• "many successive Canadian governments have long maintained"
• "the political party forming the government has often maintained"
• "a common theme of successive Canadian governments is that"
• "a common theme of some political parties forming the government is that"
• "the editor-cat was tortured until it howled in agony"

Successive/some/many? Government/political party/common view/judicial view? Some/many/most of the G.pp.cv.jv maintain this? Maintain/opine/hold the view/insist/are confident? How important is this precise re-wording? Franamax (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Is "It has long been held" too simplistic? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on G2bambino (talk)

I've taken this dispute here, specifically here. This isn't a discussion about content anymore. --soulscanner (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I took it here too. I'd only notified G2b, but there it is... Franamax (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not editing here until this is resolved. It's futile. We could have solved this by now. --soulscanner (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Unless I'm missing something; the Governor General of Canada is linked to the Canadian monarchy. If Canada were not a Monarchy, there'd be no Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The position would still exist, it serves a procedural purpose. If Canada were not a monarchy, the position might be renamed "president", but it wouldn't go away. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Canada, oh but to dream. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a killjoy, but there are probably more people dreaming of a Republic of Quebec and an elected Senate than a Republic of Canada. --soulscanner (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll make it in one peace; I'm hopeful. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Symbolic and political executive

Most political scientists generally refer to a dual executive as made up of a symbolic and political executive. The intent of the 5 suporting references is to establish without doubt that the Crown is widely regarded as "the symbolic executive". Please do not alter the positioning or the content of the references. I'm restoring this terminology as it has been previously removed and the supporting references altered. The writing could probably be improved, but please do not remove the terminology, or express this fact in "weasel words" (e.g. "is said to be"). --soulscanner (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't alter or remove them, I promise. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Version 1

The very first question that pops into my mind is: why is there so much detail in the government and politics section? This is not the place to go into so much minutae about who holds what opinion on the role of whatever position; the section should be a summary.

I made an attempt at trimming the wording down from what it was a couple of days ago (and which has since been further added to!):

The Cabinet is typically regarded as the active seat of executive power; by convention and to maintain democratic principles, it execises on a day-to-day basis that authority which is constitutionally vested in the monarch, while the sovereign and her appointed representative, the Governor General, act predominantly in a ceremonial and apolitical role. Made up of ministers generally accountable to the elected House of Commons, the Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister, who is normally the leader of the party that holds the confidence of the House of Commons. This arrangement, which stems from the principles of responsible government, ensures the stability of government, and makes the Prime Minister's Office one of the most powerful organs of the system, tasked with selecting, besides the other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the federal and provincial viceroys for appointment by the Crown.

The other detail can go elsewhere, either at Government of Canada or Monarchy of Canada, I'd say. It's excessive here. --G2bambino (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more streamlined and brief paragraphs are desirable in this article. To be clear, you are proposing replacing the entire paragraph with the above text, correct? DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the entire second paragraph; though, perhaps not word for word as I've proposed above. It was just a try at cutting out some of the detail while still explaining the basics. --G2bambino (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty fair statement of reality. Little quibbles: exercises; "federal court" - introduces an opaque term, could use a link to something for the naive reader; "viceroy"s - same thing, huh? what's that? - especially since the GG is the "federal viceroy" and that's not made clear, and barring that issue, viceroy could link to Lt. Gov. so readers could easily explore the term. I'd like to see something in there as to how important it is that cabinet ministers be members of the house, as it does significantly affect the makeup of the cabinet. That could be supported with a million ref's from newspapers. I'm all for keeping the verbiage trimmed though. Franamax (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pairing down the section is a good idea. I'd be for moving the sentence about Forsey and the Liberals to a Government of Canada page and expanding on it. It requires more space to explain it fairly. That might require a little more consensus now that others have made contributions on it.

My concern is that the symbolic nature of the Crown be very clearly emphasized. It may or may not have political power; it is unclear how many powers, if any, the GG and Queen still have. The Crown is an important concept, though. It represents the will of the Canadian people in a nonpartisan way; it does not represent the will of the Queen or GG; if it did, it would be undemocratic. I don't really get that out of the reading of this version. I think the new intro helps with it though. --soulscanner (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about the exact changes but, in principle, I approve. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, What do you mean exactly about the importance of Cabinet ministers being MPs? I suspect you are saying that they ought to accountable to the House but it is not required. In fact, the Minister of State for Seniors is a Senator. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the huge stir when a senator is named to cabinet, since it goes so much against the grain (i.e. Fortier). Yes, it's not an automatic restriction, but the practical effect is to vastly limit the pool of cabinet ministers, for instance if a highly competent finance minister weren't re-elected, it's very very unlikely they would resume in that portfolio. Contrast this with the obviously much different US executive, and I'm not sure how the British one works (many more Lords in it I think). This is a fairly notable feature of how Canadian government works (again, in actual practice) and in fact could be regarded as somewhat perverse. I guess rather than the somewhat vague "accountable to Parliament", I'm thinking more on the lines of "usually selected from, and answerable to, the elected Parliament". Franamax (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If youI do not object feel strongly about it, I do not object to it; either phrasing is alright with me. --soulscanner (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is quibbling, I know, but does anybody else find he sentences a little long? Could they be chopped up into something my ADT can handle without changing content? --soulscanner (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Version 2

I actually prefer that we pare it down even more.

Canada is a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government and strong democratic traditions. The Parliament is made up of the Crown and two houses: an elected House of Commons and an appointed Senate. Each Member of Parliament in the House of Commons is elected by simple plurality in an electoral district or riding. General elections must be called by the Prime Minister within five years of the previous election, or may be triggered by the government losing a confidence vote in the House (usually only possible during minority governments). Members of the Senate, whose seats are apportioned on a regional basis, are chosen by the Prime Minister and formally appointed by the Governor General, and serve until age 75.

Canada is also a constitutional monarchy, with The Crown acting as a symbolic or ceremonial executive. The Crown consists of Queen Elizabeth II (legal head of state) and her appointed viceroys, the Governor General (acting head of state) and provincial Lieutenant-Governors , who perform most of the monarch's ceremonial roles. . The political executive consists of the Prime Minister (head of government) and the Cabinet and carries out the day-to-day decisions of government. The Cabinet is made up of ministers usually selected from the House of Commons and headed by the Prime Minister , who is normally the leader of the party that holds the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is one of the most powerful institutions in government , initiating most legislation for parliamentary approval and selecting, besides other Cabinet members, Senators, federal court judges, heads of Crown corporations and government agencies, and the Governor General. The Crown formally approves parliamentary legislation and the Prime Minister's appointments.

Notes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)