Talk:Canada: Difference between revisions

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 ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:41, 2 November 2007

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

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

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

Canada FA‑class Top‑importance

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

Template:WP1.0

Canada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 6, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
May 25, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Project Countries main page

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!

Shortcuts

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

What's new?

Article alerts

Today's featured article requests

01 Jan 2025 – Japan (talk · edit · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by 750h+ (t · c); see discussion

Did you know

05 Nov 2024 – Saybrook Colony (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Gazingo (t · c); see discussion
20 Oct 2024 – Mwene Muji (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Kowal2701 (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

02 Nov 2024 – First Sikh State (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Ratnahastin (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)

Categories for discussion

03 Nov 2024 – Category:Fathers' rights by country (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion
26 Oct 2024 – Category:SubGenii by nationality (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c) was closed; see discussion
24 Oct 2024 – Category:Operations against organized crime by country (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Templates for discussion

31 Oct 2024 – Template:Religions by country table World (talk · edit · hist) was TfDed by Gonnym (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

29 Oct 2024 – 三州府 (talk · edit · hist) →Straits Settlements was RfDed by GreenLipstickLesbian (t · c); see discussion
28 Oct 2024 – Greater Region of Luxembourg (talk · edit · hist) →Greater Region of SaarLorLux was RfDed by РоманЖ (t · c); see discussion
28 Oct 2024 – Greater Luxembourg (modern region) (talk · edit · hist) →Greater Region of SaarLorLux was RfDed by РоманЖ (t · c); see discussion
28 Oct 2024 – Greater Luxembourg (talk · edit · hist) →Greater Region of SaarLorLux was RfDed by РоманЖ (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

27 Oct 2024 – Central Powers (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by History6042 (t · c); start discussion
25 Oct 2024 – Mizo Chieftainship (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mmis325 (t · c); start discussion
01 Oct 2024 – Regency of Algiers (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nourerrahmane (t · c); start discussion
01 Oct 2024 – Connecticut Colony (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Gazingo (t · c); start discussion
17 Jul 2024 – Sultanate of Bijapur (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Flemmish Nietzsche (t · c); see discussion
19 Apr 2024 – First Republic of Armenia (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Olympian (t · c); see discussion
06 Mar 2024 – Rai dynasty (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by TrangaBellam (t · c); see discussion

To do list

Scope

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

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

Subpages

List of all subpages of this page.

Formatting

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

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

Goals

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

Structure and guidelines

This section contains an essay on style, consisting of the advice or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest.

This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

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

Main polities

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

Lead section

Shortcut

WP:COUNTRYLEAD

For lead length see, #Size

Opening paragraphs

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

First sentence

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

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

Example:

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

Detail, duplication and tangible information

Shortcut

WP:COUNTRYDETAIL

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

Example:

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

Infobox

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

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

The contents are as follows:

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

Lead map

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

Sections

Shortcut

WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS

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

Articles may consist of the following sections:

Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links

Size

Shortcut

WP:COUNTRYSIZE

Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually four paragraphs as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.

Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,834 words) "readable prose size"
Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8,152 words) "readable prose size"
Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9,092 words) "readable prose size"
New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,761 words) "readable prose size"
Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,178 words) "readable prose size"

Hatnote

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

Y== Economy ==

N== Economy ==

Charts

Shortcut

WP:COUNTRYCHARTS

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

Galleries

Shortcut

WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE

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

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

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

Shortcut

H:TRANSDRAWBACKS

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

Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, have different established reference styles, contain no-text cite errors, or duplicate key errors. (To help mitigate these, see Help:Cite errors)
Excerpts break the link between article code and article output.
Changes made to transcluded content often do not appear in watchlists, resulting in unseen changes on the target page.
Transcluded text may cause repeated links or have different varieties of English and date formats than the target page.
Transclusions may not reflect protection levels, resulting in transcluded text perhaps having a different level of protection than the target page. See Cascading protection
{{excerpt}} and related templates may require using <noinclude>, <includeonly> and <onlyinclude> markup at the transcluded page to have selective content; that would require monitoring that the markup is sustained.
Excerpts cause editors to monitor transcluded pages for "section heading" changes to ensure transclusion continues to work. (To help mitigate this, see MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS)
Excerpts can result in content discussions over multiple talk pages that may have different considerations or objectives for readers.

Lists of countries

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

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

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

Resources

Sisterlinks

Related WikiProjects

Popular pages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Popular pages

Notes

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

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

Notice: This article is already too long. It is not intended to discuss all issues related to Canada, but serve only as an introduction. Before you add material to this article, please consider adding it instead to one of the many "main" articles linked from this article, e.g., Politics of Canada, Geography of Canada, etc. Thank you.

The country name

The language of Canada is both French and English.

The name of the country is in both French and English. It is also pronounced differently in both French and English; so why is the name not listed in the article in both French and English? --Antiedman 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC), punctuation clarified by Grantsky 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Canada in french is Canada, the pronounciation only differs due to the accents of the speaker and since this is the english version of wikipedia i dont see why one would consider including info in another language(Hulkamania14 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The long-form name in English, Dominion of Canada,

The long-form name in French, Dominion du Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table: Temperatures of Canadian Cities

There is something wrong with the sortable wikitable. This table shows Vancouver has the coldest winter, but it's the only one with positive degree celsius. It doesn't know the difference between positive and negative. Does anyone know how to fix this? DWMD w 18:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. I just added + and 0 infront of the number to make it work. DWMD w 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vimy Ridge territory footnote

I have removed this footnote, since it is completely misleading. The land that the Vimy Ridge memorial in France is on was donated to Canada, but that doesn't mean that is is sovereign Canadian territory. It is no different from if the government of Canada bought a house in South Africa. It is French land owned by the Canadian government, but is completely a part of France. Lexicon (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sovereign Canadian territory, the Canadian government acknowledges that. R-41 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Lexicon (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is directly taken from the Veteran Affairs Canada site:

"It is sometimes suggested that this land is part of Canada. This is not strictly correct. In 1922, the French Government granted "freely, and for all time, to the Government of Canada the free use of the land exempt from all taxes". Unlike an embassy, it is subject to the laws of France and the French police are responsible for law and order."

That should settle it. I have added this to Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada. -- Reaper X 07:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's political parties

I have changed Canada's political party list, under the Politics and Government section, to indicate that Canada has "two major" political parties (the Liberals and the Tories) and two third parties (the NDP and the Bloc). I have also indicated that there are many minor parties, such as the Greens. I think that this is wholly accurate. Canada is a two-party state. Only the Liberals and the Tories can form government. We must stop treating the NDP and the Bloc as if they are viable contenders for the PMO. Nopm 13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is not a two-party system. From that article "A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate the voting in nearly all elections. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by the two major parties.".

Not only does the bloc and the NDP hold elected office (25% in the past election), which by itself would make Canada a multi-party system, but they hold significant power, both in the past and currently. In the past, the bloc was Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition from 1993 to 1997, and even now the government requires the help of either the bloc or the NDP supporting pass bills; this was the case just recently when the bloc helped pass the budget in 2007, and the NDP also helped the Liberals pass some bills in the previous minority government in exchange for some changes in those bills. Canada is far from being a two-party system. -- Jeff3000 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Canada currently has a minority government pretty much speaks for itself in negating any claim that Canada is a two party state, particularly when you compare it to real two-party states like the U.S. --Soulscanner 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is a multi-party system and the lessers do hold some power but its the ruling party that holds the most power historically. So far there has never ever been a prime minister that was not from either the liberal or the conservative party in some form, and the lessers have always been just that, the lessers. People say the usa is a 2 party system but they have independents to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.214.115 (talk • contribs).

Does the fact that the NDP and other 'third' parties, like the Saskatchewan Party and the the Parti-Québécois, have held power on a provincial level not mean anything? Correct me if I'm wrong, but on a state level in the US there are still only Democratic or Republic governements. Thus, I think it is somewhat misleading to characterize Canada as a two-party system.

conservative now in charge- Soku Kitty 16:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a political scientist I have to say that the correct term technically is that Canada is a 'two party plus' system. This means two major parties and a collection of minor parties with representation but unable to form governments. 128.189.135.87 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As both a Canadian and student of Canadian politics, I can confirm that Canada has a multi-party system. Parties such as the NDP or Greens are perfectly able to form a government as long as they receive more seats in the House of Commons following a General Election. Yes, we have only ever had Liberal or Conservative parties forming the government in the past, but there is no reason why others can't be voted in as the governing party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To call the Canadian system a multi-system for the reason that NDP or Bloc or who ever can form the government is ill conceived. If we were to judge a country's political system based on the ability of a third party to form the government, then that would result in the United States being considered a multi-party system. There is a Libertarian Party in the United States who CAN form the government, but the categorizing of their system is based on the likely-hood that the third party will form the government. In both cases it is highly unlikely. Canada is a two party system perpetuated because of a FPTP system which prefers a two-party system. Paulk 04 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Paulk_04[reply]

long list of navbars

I thought the point of this template was that we didn't need all those other ones at the bottom. Can the rest be removed? - TheMightyQuill 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead once again

The lead has been changed once again without any discussion. The previous version had a longstanding consensus. The current one, while better in some places, in my mind has too much detail, as well as sounding very staccato, especially the third paragraph. I think the third paragraph should go back to the way it was before, and the second paragraph should be shortened. -- Jeff3000 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Revert the lead. Please make note in comments that changes to the lead should first be discussed first as they represent a consensus. --Soulscanner 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: the current introduction is far too verbose and convoluted. Corticopia 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made some changes - 3 colonies not 4, used piped link for New France instead of presuming reader already knows or will need to click on link, avoided awkward successive 2 "with"s in same sentence, fixed a spelling/typo error. Mentioning that Canada has grown by including the remaining BNA colonies has merit (US article, eg, is much more specific in lead on its expansion). The comments above were mostly made in reference to a much longer & rambling version of the lead than the one that was eventually completely reverted. The second paragraph HAD already been greatly shortened while still keeping some of the "better in some places". Complete reversion does not preserve that which is "better in some places" --JimWae 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "3 colonies" is TOO concise since 3 colonies united to form 4 provinces. So concise that for months the lede had been in error on the # of colonies -- an attempt to simplify created an error of oversimplification. --JimWae 19:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page request

I want to try to get this on the Main Page for Canada Day 2008. It may be quite early to discuss this, but what the hell, gets our ducks lined up. We need to make a request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. The last time it was on the main page was June 23, 2006. What the significance of that day is unknown to me. But the blurb is archived, and it looks a little short to me. Thoughts? -- Reaper X 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear Hear! I agree completely. --DotDarkCloud 11:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion in the lead

The term dominion is now the fifth word in this article, as in "Canada is a federal dominion..." For most readers, this term is completely foreign and is confusing. The lead should be especially understandable to the general population, and a term that needs much further explanation should not be placed there. A dominion is a type of country, and I believe country should be used. The term commonwealth realm is better, but even that needs some explanation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's plenty fine. I'm sure the average anglophone reader knows Canada is a country. And if dominion is still confusing, it's wikilinked to the dominion article, which reads "...dominion is the term used to refer to a current or former territory of the shared Crown". That way they learn what dominion means eh? -- Reaper X 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to put the word "dominion" rather than the word "country" because of the precedent set by the article on the United States, which uses the word "republic" rather than "country". However, the articles on France and Belgium use "country" rather than "republic" and "kingdom", so precedent could go either way. I say we keep it as "dominion", as it is more specific. However, if we change it to "country" I think that the term "dominion" should appear within the first few sentences; maybe we could add a sentence saying "The dominion was confederated from British North American colonies in 1867". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the most commonly, easily understood term: country. If one looks at the history of Canada article, there is also uncertainty (in some circles) about whether dominion means an independent country (and you can see in the history here this question has been beaten to death before), and in fact the constitutional 'independence', because gradualist, is not unambiguous. I see no reason to work off the US article as an example in this instance.--Gregalton 19:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Canada is first and foremost a country. The type of government and status is a secondary issue. Given that word country would be repeated twice, I'll go back to the old lead that worked well. -- Jeff3000 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, no one knows what a Dominion is. It is an obscure, antiquated term no longer used in Canada (this is explained early on in the Entymology section) and of interest only to certain historians and nostalgic monarchists. If you want to look for comparable precedents, look at Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (the other "Dominions"). They don't go by that moniker anymore either. --Soulscanner 10:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not describe Canada as a constitutional monarchy? That's what it is (along with the 15 other commonwealth nations with EII2 as 'Head of State'). GoodDay 21:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A constitutional monarchy is a type of government. Canada's government is organized as a constitutional monarchy, but it itself is a country. Regardless, constitutional monarchy is already linked in the third lead paragraph which talks abouts Canada's organization. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's good enough for me. GoodDay 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Jeff, now that you've provided a good arguement and changed it, can you work in the fact that it's part of the commonwealth realm? That was the original reason I wanted to leave dominion in, and I think it deserves mention in the lead. -- Reaper X 21:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done, -- Jeff3000 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevjumba has reverted the page twice. I'm not going to get into a revert war, but I still believe that having constitutional monarchy is not the appropriate term for the first sentence as it is a type of government, and Canada is not a type of government. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of User:Kevjumba's objection seems to be that "federal country" is redundant; why not just say that Canada is a federation? - Eron ^Talk 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem with "federation" as I do with "constitutional monarchy". Both are systems that Canada uses, they are not definitions of what Canada is. Both "federal" and "constitutionally monarchical" are usable as adjectives, but the only words usable as nouns to describe Canada in the lead are "dominion" or "country". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads to the original argument here; which term should be used? I think that it's good consensus here that "country" should be used until further notice. Enough with these tangents. -- Reaper X 21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph should simply call Canada a country. The sundry aspects of its governance and political structure are too much to get into for the purposes of a paragraph on its most basic geography (location, bounds and exceptional size), and if we start making exceptions for what this editor and that editor think are the outstanding aspect of its governance and political structure (or its society, its languages, its economy, or whatever), we'll end up with a hodge-podge string of descriptors and an endless debate over which ones to put "in the front window". Better to just call it a country at first, and explain (in brief) its governance and political structure in an organized way and in one place, further down in the lead.
-- Lonewolf BC 16:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. We should use Canada is a country as a common ground for this problem. Watchdogb 00:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think that, at least, is something everyone can agree on. (Okay, maybe not everyone.) - Eron ^Talk 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that the word country is very generic, inclusive and is then somewhat empty. Eveyone knows that Canada is a country. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that even University students are quoting and therefore the wording has to be carefully selected to be accurate enough to carry the meaning. In this cas Dominion is the word used in the Constitution documents, even the one that were transfered to Ottawa. But, Canada is also a certain type of federation. In this first part, it should also be mentioned that Canada is part of the British Commonwealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada itself does not use terms like Kingdom or Republic in it's official name as do other countries. Canada is a "confederation" by it's own deffinition with a parlimentary/constitutional monarchy type of governemnt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.148.53.200 (talk) 20:56, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

To the anon: Canada is not a confederation, it is a federation. The term "confederation" as used to refer to the creation of Canada means something like "the process of federating". Lexicon (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dominion of Canada" in lead

Canada should be referred to as the "Dominion of Canada" in the lead. Both the 1867 and 1871 constitutional acts legally establish "Dominion of Canada" as the country's official name (more so the 1871 act). Furthermore there has never been any law repealing the official status of the name "Dominion of Canada." I have here two links from official Canadian government websites that state that even to this day "Dominion of Canada" is the country's legal name: http://www.pch.gc.ca/special/flag-drapeau/defi-challenge/reponses-answers_e.cfm http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/special/royalvisit/royal-quiz-answers.htm -Mike K. IC79 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, the term "Dominion" has fallen into total disuse.Grantsky 19:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead-edit of 15 August 2007

My apologies for hastily reverting the initial reversion of this. On second thoughts, I was going to self-revert back to the older version, in accord with "Bold-Revert-Discuss", but Greg beat me to it.
That said, a vague statement such as "that's not an improvement" is an inadequate justification for making a total revert. If there are specific objections to the edit, those can and should be discussed. Then the worths of the older version can then be weighed against those of the put-forward revision, and the passage can be revised or refined accordingly, not necessarily ending in either the present or the proposed form, exactly. But specific criticisms are needed, else there is no basis for a meaningful discussion.
So far there's been one specific criticism, which is Greg's observation of the "sentence error" in "'The federation is consists of...'". Okay, I grant that it should be "...federation consists of..." (no "is"), but that was a mere oversight in proofreading, and the mend for it could hardly be easier. That's not a sound reason to revert a whole edit. So, what are the perceived flaws in the proposed edit?
The thinking behind the edit is as follows: The first thing anyone needs to know about Canada (or any country) is its general location in the world, and its extents. In the specific case of Canada, its distinction as the world's second-biggest country is worth next-mention, but that's only a sort of "bragging right" which is a mere function of the national boundaries -- not only those of Canada, itself, but those of the world's other countries. So it is not a primary or essential fact about Canada. Thus it ought go after the description of the country's location and bounds, rather than leading off the article. Canada's federal character is an aspect of its governance and its political structure, so it ought be covered in the paragraph that covers the rest of that topic. I therefore moved all that stuff to the third paragraph. Those were the only sizeable changes made by the edit. The rest of it was some quite trivial changes within the third paragraph.
I suggest that we begin by discussing the "federal" bit, which has migrated into the mostly-geographic first paragraph only so lately. I submit that it does not belong there, for the reasons already given. Moreover, although federalism is a characteristic of Canada now, and seems likely to carry on being so for foreseeable future, it is no more essential a characteristic than, say, bilingualism or parliamentary democracy. To put that another way, if for some reason the country adopted a more centralised form of government, it would yet be Canada. So "federal" does not deserve some special first-sentence of first-paragraph mention, but should simply go into the rest of the lead's precis on Canada's governance, which is presently in the third paragraph. -- Lonewolf BC 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and open mind, and bringing it to the talk page. As you will probably be able to see from the talk page and archives, the lead is the result of many, many word by word edits. It's a trench war, and there is a lot of sniping from occasional vandals. So larger changes to this article - which seems to attract a lot of close attention - tend to get reverted unless it's a clear improvement. Therefore, I'd suggest incremental changes in the lead, unless of course starting over is absolutely necessary - i.e. you think we need to start over (but you'll get some push back).

As for the specifics of your comments: I also think the federal is out of place in the first sentence, not so much for longer reasons - it just sounds ugly. Replacing country with dominion, for example, has been tried, and rejected, as have numerous other variants because country is easy to understand. So by all means, let's see if federal / federalism can be moved down.

And when editing this lead, grammar and even typos count...see the point above.--Gregalton 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that an incremental approach is needed, and I was actually trying for that. An omnibus rewrite, holding many changes, is likely to get shot down because even if most other folk approve of each particular change, most of them are likely also to disagree with at least something, so a wholesale revert is liable to fly (despite that the making of such reverts is generally a bad practice, I think).
(As for grammar and typos, yes of course they "count", and I can see wholesale-reverting an edit where the writing is just bad on the whole, or the typos are so thick that it is unfair to leave their mending to someone else. On the other hand, one of the great advantages of collaborative editing is that a different person can often spot an error-of-oversight that the original writer reads right over despite proofreading with all due care -- the author, knowing what he meant to write, truly does not see the extra word, spelling mistake, or whatever, that he did not mean to write.)
Anyway, let's begin with the "federal case". ;-)
-- Lonewolf BC 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the federalism point at the beginning of the 1st paragraph is out of place. How about we go back to the version that had the second-largest country by area (which had a nice boundary between geography, history, organization) and then start improving it from there. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning no offence, Jeff, but I think that reverting as you suggest would be a bad idea. I strongly suggest that we take one issue at a time, discuss it thoroughly, leave plenty of time (a week or so) for anyone concerned to comment, prolong the moot further if new views keep trickling in that seem liable tip the outcome, and then act on the consensus so reached. Then we'll have a secure consensus, reached through a certain, particular discussion. Although that consensus would not be inviolable, it and its originating discussion should be enough to convince any reasonable drop-in editor holding a different view that there is a consensus against that editor's view. So I think we should most definitely not revert to the size-before-location version. That would make for two things to talk about, and almost inevitably lead to a tangled discussion. We should settle the "federal" bit first. Then we can talk about how best to order the first paragraph. What stands now has as good a consensus as any version of this shifting lead. We should leave it be for the time being, and work from it to build a firmer consensus-version of the lead. I say this as one who thinks that the "federal" stuff should be moved, yet I'm willing to let it stand while we hash out whether or not it should be moved. -- Lonewolf BC 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lonewolf, as the person whose revert you took issue with, I'll again state that the changes did not improve the lead. (I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is what I feel - your work is appreciated, but in this case it required a revert.) Moreover, in the case of a featured article, it is important to make sure that all changes strengthen the text. As such, we should discuss your proposed changes first, and then go "live" with any agreed-upon tweaks. AS for the changes, here are one example (dealing with Canada's boundaries):

Original text: "Occupying most of northern North America, it extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. Canada shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest."

Your change: "Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is the country covering most of the northern half of North America. It is bounded on the east and west by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, respectively. To the north, it is bounded by the Arctic Ocean, into which it extends as large collection of islands. The United States of America bounds Canada to the south and, in the form of the state of Alaska, to the northwest."

The previous version is stronger, and more concise. There are similar issues with the third paragraph, as well as some errors that would require rewrites and cleanup. Again, given that this is a featured article, it is better to work out the details here first, and then change the lead. That helps to keep the article stable. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may notice from the above, I'm fine with discussion, and I think it must be carried out in a patient, methodical way so as to yield sure results. I do note that the lead has not been all that stable, so I don't see that I should be pilloried for touching it. Though I hesitate to cite policy-pages at other folk, I catch a whiff of "ownership" in your comments.
I'm also fine with "bluntness" -- not tip-toing around in critiquing an edit -- but I'm not keen on vagueness and, sorry to say, I find your critiques to be vague and subjective, and that is my objection to them. Obviously I disagree that the older text is "stronger", and if it is shorter, it is also less informative -- to its detriment, in my view. The balance between content and brevity is a matter of personal judgement, and "strength" lacks a definite meaning in this context. One might as well just say "better" as "stronger"; both express a preference, without explaining its reasons.
However, I don't wish to pursue these tangents. Let's settle the issues one at a time, patiently and methodically, through discussion. Let "federal-in-first-paragraph" be first up.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like direct comments, here are some (comparing the two texts):

Covering most of northern half of north america: ambiguous, implies Canada occupies ~25%-49% (one-half of one-half?). Most of northern north america is closer to accurate. Also less wordy.
Bounded on east and west by atlantic/pacific, north by arctic: redundant to almost any reader with knowledge of the Northern hemisphere. Original text used this as a stylistic frame, not a geographical one. Bounded is a strange image.
Respectively: redundant when facts are clear; best used only when correspondence (pacific / west, etc) is not clear or there is a longer list.
"into which it extends as a large collection of islands": wordy, islands detail unnecessary here (and invites unneeded comparison about prevalence of islands on all the coasts: what about Newfoundland? Vancouver Island? Cape Breton Island?). Not sure the 'bounding' phrasing above works for a peninsula / groups of islands.
"Bounds Canada": implies physical restraint, inappropriate here. Repeats bounding.
"in the form of the State of Alaska": unnecessary verbiage, article does not need mention of Alaska here. If Alaska is required, borders Alaska would be sufficient.

So, I hope this doesn't sound overly harsh, but I agree with ckatz: previous version was stronger, better.--Gregalton 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, Greg, and no, it does not "sound overly harsh". Didn't I say I don't mind straightforwardness in critiques? I disagree with what you say there, by and large, but please let us leave aside these quibbles about writing style, for the time being, and finish deciding whether or not the "federal" stuff ought go in the first paragraph. -- Lonewolf BC 22:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Federal" in the first paragraph? (discussion moved down the page)

(Moved to below.)

Request for comment: Is the Governor General's residence an official residence of the monarch?

Editors of this article may wish to comment on the edits being made at Official residence, advancing the unusual view that the official residence of the Governor General of Canada, and those of her equivalents in other jurisdictions, are "royal" residences (i.e. official residences of the monarch), and that this aspect (assuming for the moment that it exists) deserves mention in a list of official residences, alongside "vice-regal", the somewhat opaque term being substituted for "Governor General" and the like, by the royalising editor.
(For your further information, the "royal" issue began in the "Canada" entry. Afterward, the same editor spread it to the entries on a number of other countries. He did so in conjunction with his "general cleanup" of the article. The "cleanup" is also making the article worse in some other ways, in my opinion. You might wish to look at that, too, but those are separate, or at most indirectly related issues. I would not bother mentioning these tangentials, here, but in the cases where I have left them out, the royalising editor has placed a follow-up note saying that I've "...omitt[ed] the point that the ["royal"] edits ... are part of a broader cleanup..." (for an example of his full remarks, see this), obliging me to place another follow-up, alike to this parenthetical, to dispell the potential impression that I've been less than fully truthful about the situation. Sorry for this digression; I'd much rather have stayed focussed on the main issue.)
-- Lonewolf BC 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Lonewolf BC is here conveniently editing my words placed elsewhere. In full, I have stated: the edits at Official residence are part of a broader cleanup of the article to create a uniform standard; "royal" and "vice-regal" in place of the specific Canadian Monarch and Governor General of Canada brings the Canadian section into line with others which use (by other editors' contributions) "royal," "vice-regal," "presidential," "prime ministerial" and the like.

Comments are certainly welcome at Talk:Official residence to improve the article as a whole. --G2bambino 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further about this, in the case of Canada the "royalising" edits to "Official residence" are part of a broad campaign by the editor concerned, making the same claim across many articles, most notably the "Rideau Hall" article itself. Your comments are invited there, as well. The "Rideau Hall" talkpage would make a good central place for a discussion of this, I think. -- Lonewolf BC 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is increasingly difficult - By denying that Rideau Hall is the Canadian Monarch's 'official residence', it gives the impression that the Canadian Monarch is a foreigner. However, Rideau Hall is rarely (if ever) described as the Monarch's official residence. I would edit this page based on the 'most recent' edit at Rideau Hall (as it covers the grey area of this topic). GoodDay 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "this page", GoodDay? The Canada article or Official residence?

Of course, Rideau Hall is rarely referred to as the Monarch's residence, but it certainly has been, as the cites at Rideau Hall show. --G2bambino 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant both articles. I accept the addition of the Canadian Monarch. GoodDay 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't argue the point here. The Rideau Hall talkpage is the best place for that. -- Lonewolf BC 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's arguing? Anyways - to the Rideau Hall article. GoodDay 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha. You are. You're arguing that no one is arguing. ;-)
Really, I meant that both you and G. posted things that ... might have draw the discussion hither. Call it an incipient argument, if you like. Just heading it off. -- Lonewolf BC 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. GoodDay 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

The demographics section lists Enlish as the first ethnic group at some 20% of the population, then gives a Statcan source which lists Canadian as first with 40% of the population. This is even noted after listing the multiple other ethnicities (English, French, Scottish, Irish, Chinese...). Should it not put Canadian as first?

North Pole claim

I didn't see anything about the North Pole claim and exercises, I think it should be mentioned. For example, that map in the Provinces section shows the claim going to the North Pole, which I don't think many other nations recognize. --AW 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Geography and climate section it says "Since 1925, Canada has claimed the portion of the Arctic between 60°W and 141°W longitude;[26] this claim is not universally recognized." More thorough discussion is included in the article Territorial claims in the Arctic. Do you think that is enough mention? -- Reaper X 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Perspective

On the surface canadians appear to be very polite, which they are. On a deeper level, canadians like americans are disoriented and corrupt more so than other developed countries in europe and asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any concrete evidence of this claim that you've stated? nat^tang 11:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:RS to back up your claims. While also taking into consideration of WP:BLP (which applies to claims that may defame all Canadians) and minority views and lastly WP:REDFLAG. Watchdogb 22:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canadian myself I do recognize that we can be very direct but this is part of the values that we defend.

However, this is not a reason to be insulting and I am sorry if you had a bad experience with some of us.(Laurentien 22:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Canada cultural differences from other countries are relatively minor. Why its mentioned at all rather surprises me, since it appears to be very close to U.S. cultural values. In fact, one of the few cultural distinctions is that Canadians repeatively empathsize the fact that they are not Americans. Why do Canadians have to do that? If their culture is truly unique, wouldn't the world know about it, making emphasis unnecessary? This is coming from a Canadian, by the way.69.158.190.154 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Canada?

Is Canada a kingdom (being a Commonwealth monarchy)? If so, should we add it to the article? GoodDay 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is a kingdom, but it is unnecessary because the article already states that Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as Sovereign and head of state. nat^tang 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the country can be defined as a kingdom, but articles on other countries that are kingdoms don't describe the countries as such; even United Kingdom (despite its title) doesn't describe the UK as a kingdom, but a constitutional monarchy instead. --G2bambino 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is not a Kingdom. Canada is a Dominion.

A Dominion has a Governor-General as the resident figure-head of the figure Head-of-State British Monarch (i.e., presently Queen II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

To clarify please review the following list of countries,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Unitary Kingdom,

Dominion of Canada (post-1867) is a Federal Dominion,

Commonwealth of Australia (post-1901) is a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of New Zealand (post-1907) is a Unitary Dominion

Dominion of Newfoundland (1907-1949) was a Unitary Dominion (annexed to the Dominion of Canada in 1949),

Union of South Africa (1910-1961) was a Unitary Dominon,

Irish Free State (1921-1949) was a Unitary Dominion,

Dominion of India (1947-1950) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Pakistan (1947-1956) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Fiji (1970-1987) was a Unitary Dominion.

Independent State of Papua New Guinea (post-1975) is a Unitary Dominion (oops! It is not a Federal Dominion).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Canada is a dominion. GoodDay 23:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GoodDay. Yep, Canada is a Dominion (not a dominion). The capitalised Dominion term has its meaning explicitly and implicitly defined in the British Commonwealth of Nations Constitutional document, the Statute of Westminster 1931. ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word Dominion was replaced with Commonwealth Realm in 1948; and Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are Commonwealths, Virginia is a Dominion, and California and Texas are Republics. These are all more curiosities. Is any of this more than an exercise in mindless semantics? No. --Soulscanner 10:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SoulScanner there are 50 States of the US (an offical USA Constitutional term).

4 of the 50 States of the US have Commonwealth as apart of their Style and Title (i.e., their long-form name).

46 of the 50 States of the US have State as apart of their Style and Title (i.e., their long-form name).

Please review the information listed below ... these are much more than mindless semantics.

Royal Styles and Titles 1801 (usage of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1801

"... by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [King], Defender of the Faith."

Royal Styles and Titles 1876 (addition of Empress of India)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1876

"... by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [Queen], Defender of the Faith, Empress of India".

Royal Styles and Titles 1901 (addition of British Dominions beyond the Seas)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1901

"... by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas [King], Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India".

Royal Styles and Titles 1927 (usage of Great Britain, Ireland instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1927

"... by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas [King], Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India".

Royal Styles and Titles 1948 (Emperor of India deleted)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1948

"... by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas [King], Defender of the Faith."

Royal Styles and Titles 1953 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland re-inserted; usage of Realms instead of British Dominions)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1953

"... by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories [Queen], Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ".

Above are the changes in the Royal Style and Titles from about 1801-1953. Upon close inspection one will see that the changes reflect ONLY the BRITISH SOVEREIGN, and indirectly the Royal Domains. The last change of 1953 DOES NOT ABOLISH the term DOMINION, as most people here at Wikipedia try to peddle!!.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Unitary Kingdom,

Dominion of Canada (post-1867) is a Federal Dominion,

Commonwealth of Australia (post-1901) is a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of New Zealand (post-1907) is a Unitary Dominion

Dominion of Newfoundland (1907-1949) was a Unitary Dominion (annexed to the Dominion of Canada in 1949),

Union of South Africa (1910-1961) was a Unitary Dominon,

Irish Free State (1921-1949) was a Unitary Dominion,

Dominion of India (1947-1950) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Pakistan (1947-1956) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Fiji (1970-1987) was a Unitary Dominion.

Independent State of Papua New Guinea (post-1975) is a Unitary Dominion (oops! It is not a Federal Dominion).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Commonwealth Realm article states clearly that 'They are independent kingdoms, and the sovereign is separately and equally monarch of each state; thus, they are in personal union with one another.' If this terminology is in dispute, it would most appropriately be discussed there. So although you say Canada is a Dominion, Soulscanner's point is that this is a semantic distinction - the one meaning does not exclude the other.--Gregalton 15:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, we're letting this discussion go off track; we're all in agreemtn on not adding 'Kingdom', 'Dominion' or 'Realm' right? If so, then I'm satisfied with the 'current' version. GoodDay 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page request (one more time)

[Reaper X posted this a month ago, since there was apparently no discussion of it, I'm raising it again, S.]

I want to try to get this on the Main Page for Canada Day 2008. It may be quite early to discuss this, but what the hell, gets our ducks lined up. We need to make a request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. The last time it was on the main page was June 23, 2006. What the significance of that day is unknown to me. But the blurb is archived, and it looks a little short to me. Thoughts? -- Reaper X 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea, IMO. I am not sure whether anything was done. I've left a note on Reaper X's talk page to see if he made the request. Anyone else interested in pursuing it?

BTW, I believe that they use the current lead for the Featured article. The one above is virtually identical to the lead on June 23, 2006. In any case, we should check. Sunray 20:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure FAs can appear on the main page twice. There's quite a number of FAs that have never appeared on the front page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that can stop us. I scanned WP:TFA/R and I didn't see anything that hinted that FAs can't appear on the main page twice. As for the actual dated request, the Featured Article Director (Raul654) says the following about them:

"Date requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests in this section at any time. Members of the community may comment on pending dates requests; those without significant support will be removed."

So we got tons of time, 10 months actually. I brought this up now because firstly, the idea didn't dawn on me until now. Secondly, I thought it was stupid that the article was previously featured on June 23 (how the hell is that relevant to Canada?!). Thirdly, if we want this to happen, we have to line our ducks up ahead of time, gain awareness and support for this, and perfect that paragraph that will be displayed to all users of English Wikipedia. -- Reaper X 05:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and created the subpage /Main page, and put the old paragraph there. Minor tweaks can be made there, and major changes can be discussed here. Cheers. -- Reaper X 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errors or inaccuracies

I would like to flag several errors or inaccuracies on the main page which show that this page lacks on riguor.

Canada is country of immigration. The Amerindians crossed the Bearing strait around 25000 years ago surely during an ice age and the Inuits came 5000 years ago.
Canada does not cover most of North America. It is just slightly larger than the USA and Mexico is not small.
There is no account of the Viking trial to establish themselves circa 1000 in the first part.
This phrase is not really correct: "British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast." It should read that "British and French expeditions explored the Atlantic coast." In 1534, at Gaspe, Cartier took the land for the King of France. Only the french settled themselves in 1600 in Tadoussac. This is missing. There is no evidence that Johannes Caboto landed and visited Newfoundland.
Canada was founded as one Province of New France. In 1605, Acadia was founded as a seperate Province. It covered the the Atlantic Provinces. Terra Nova was also a third Province of new France which became part of the latter Canada in 1949.

Acadia never covered the atlantic provinces. It covered roughly the territory of today's New Brunswick and mainland Nova Scotia. Some of Maine and Gaspé may also have been included, but the islands of Saint-Jean (PEI), Royale (CB), and Terre-Neuve (NF) were never deemed a part of Acadia until after the Deportation. (Laurentien 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

France never ceded the west part of Louisiana (from the Mississippi to the Rockies) to England in 1763. I want here a serious reference. This story of a secret treaty looks like a hoax.
In 1837, Canada was declared a Rebublic during the the Patriot Revolt near Montreal which would be fiercly and violently revoked by the British army,
In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union of two British North American colonies, namely Higher Canada and Lower Canada) and they became Ontario and Quebec and two Provinces were created.
(Laurentien 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, there's quite a lot here to respond to. First of all, anyone can edit, so you can make any changes you deem necessary. There are several minor changes you could proceed with. However, you will need to ensure that all changes are verifiable. Also, this is a mature article with featured article status. So major changes should be discussed here. If it is a theory, we need to present it in balanced maner to ensure a neutral point of view. Sunray 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They used to be 'Upper Canada' & 'Lower Canada'; actually by 1867 they were called 'Canada West' & 'Canada East'. GoodDay 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you quote a source for these words ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These "errors and inaccuracies" are neither:

The article correctly states that the aboriginal people have inhabited Canada for millennia - not forever.

Again, a very unprecise account. I want to make a distinction between Inuits and Amerindians since they do not have the same origins in time and nation. (Laurentien 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The article correctly states that Canada covers most of northern North America.

I really disagree on that one since Canada is just slightly larger than the US. And you forget that Mexico is part of North America. Most is not a proper word here for the level of an Encyclopedia. Most means more than half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it says northern North America.Stormhierta 12:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows is discussed.
The lede makes the correct general statement that "British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast." The body of the article goes on to describe the first, French, settlements. The article does not state that Cabot visited Newfoundland; it states that he explored the coast, and that British fishing outposts were later established in Newfoundland.
The article gives a general overview of the establishment of colonies, such as New France, which is covered in detail in the main article History of Canada and other articles such as New France.

There is an error. The first settlement was Tadoussac (Province of Canada) in 1600 and then Port Royal in the Province of Acadie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that "the Treaty of Paris (1763) ceded Canada and most of New France," not all of New France; the article says nothing about the west part of Louisiana. (from the Mississippi to the Rockies) to England in 1763.

Again, it should only talk about Canada and then this would be precise. Lets leave the rest for he New France article. (Laurentien 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Details on the 1837 rebellions are covered in their main articles. Canada may have been declared a Rebublic by some Patriotes at this time, but that form of government was never established.

But it was declared. This information is of vital importance from the historical sense, since it will explain the violent ensuing repression from the British Army. Even why the Canadian parliement was burned and the capital moved to Ottawa.

Moreover, there is no account of the metis and their leader Louis Riel that were invaded. This was an important part of Canadian history where the British wanted to unite BC with Canada. The metis were already living in a kind of society which refused to enter Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union of three British North American colonies: the Province of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Upper and Lower Canada had been a single united province since 1840.

I understand that not every detail that may be of interest or importance to you is addressed in this article; please remember that this is a general overview of Canada. Details and depth are provided in the numerous related articles that are linked throughout this one. - Eron ^Talk 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information has to accurate and valid and the errors have to be corrected. Remember, this is an Encyclopedia. (Laurentien 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

- In 1763 France ceded nearly ALL of New France - but not just to UK - much of it went to Spain. Louisiana was quite large - not just the present state. I do not think it is clear that MOST of New France went to UK. --JimWae 05:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Let's take a closer at this. At its greatest extent, New France included five colonies: Canada, Louisiana, Acadia, Newfoundland, and Hudson Bay. In the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, France ceded the latter three colonies to Great Britain (though it retained Île-Saint-Jean and Île Royale. In 1763, the Treaty of Paris ceded the French colony of Canada and the portion of Louisiana east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. While it appeared that France kept the western portion of Louisiana, under the 1762 Treaty of Fontainebleau - which was kept secret during the Paris negotiations - France had actually given Louisiana to Spain. This meant that after 1763, western Lousiana became Spanish. The only North American possessions remaining in French control were the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. (Western Louisiana returned briefly to French control in the early 1800s under the Treaty of San Ildefonso, but it was almost immediately sold to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase.)

So, did "most" of New France go to Great Britain? Looking at the map suggests to me that it did. The portion of Louisiana west of the Mississippi doesn't seem to be much more than a quarter of the whole - perhaps a third. And, as it turns out, France had already ceded that territory to Spain the year before. Given all this, I don't see that the article is out of line. - Eron ^Talk 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will check that part about Spain receiving Lousiana. If you can provide a source to justify the statement that Lousiana was ceded to Spain, please do. After that date, the foundation of St-Louis and Chicago (1779) by french settlers make me beleive that Lousiana continued to evolve as a french colony. This would also explain the foundation of places like Boise as far as Idaho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- However, if we took the area of Louisiana (New France) to be roughly the same as the area of the Louisiana Purchase (which extended to the Rockies), it would be considerably harder to determine which was "most". Open questions are 1. How accurate is the map? 2. Did Spain return to France more land in the area than they had before? --JimWae 00:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree here. I do not where that map comes from and it might be false. Please do provide references. It seems to reduce the size of new France and therefore does not match the ones that you can find on official Quebec government sites. (Laurentien 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Laurentien, before I get into a detailed discussion, can I ask that in future, you please sign your posts, and that you keep your comments together rather than interleafing them through other peoples' posts? You've made a lot of comments in response to me, and that's great, but it's a bit hard to keep track of who said what the way you have them all mixed in there. On to the details. This gets lengthy, sorry, but you've raised a lot of points and I want to be sure I get them all.

They used to be 'Upper Canada' & 'Lower Canada'; actually by 1867 they were called 'Canada West' & 'Canada East'.

Please can you quote a source for these words ?

The Act of Union 1840 joined the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada into a single united Province of Canada. "Canada East" and "Canada West" were terms used to refer to the parts of the united province that had been Upper and Lower Canada. This is pretty basic part of the History of Canada; see The Canadian Encyclopedia's entry on the Province of Canada for a typical reference on the subject.

The article correctly states that the aboriginal people have inhabited Canada for millennia - not forever.

Again, a very unprecise account. I want to make a distinction between Inuits and Amerindians since they do not have the same origins in time and nation.

That is a fine distinction to be made - but I suggest that this article, which is a general overview of Canada, is not the best place to make it. The history section of this article is accurate in what it says.

The article correctly states that Canada covers most of northern North America.

I really disagree on that one since Canada is just slightly larger than the US. Most is not a proper word here for the level of an Encyclopedia.

"Most" seems to be a perfectly adequate word. Please read the sentence again: it says most of northern North America. The continental land mass of North America spans from about 10 degrees to 80 degrees north latitude. If "northern" North America is the upper half of this, then it starts at about 45 degrees north. With the exception of Alaska, Canada has everything north of 49, and much of eastern Canada extends to and below 45. I can't see how this doesn't qualify as "most" of northern North America.

The article gives a general overview of the establishment of colonies, such as New France, which is covered in detail in the main article History of Canada and other articles such as New France.

There is an error. The first settlement was Tadoussac (Province of Canada) in 1600 and then Port Royal in the Province of Acadie.

I have looked for a clear reference on this. The Canadian Encyclopedia entry on Tadoussac states that "Pierre Chauvin tried in vain to establish a colony here in 1600." Many other references - like this one describe Port-Royal as the first permanent settlement. Parliament agrees. I think the burden of proof is on you to show a reference that Tadoussac is the first permanent settlement.

Details on the 1837 rebellions are covered in their main articles. Canada may have been declared a Rebublic by some Patriotes at this time, but that form of government was never established.

This information is of vital importance from the historical sense, since it will explain the violent ensuing repression from the British Army. Even why the Canadian parliement was burned and the capital moved to Ottawa.

Then I suggest that it be added - with appropriate references of course - to the main article on the 1837 Rebellions.

The information has to be accurate and valid and the errors have to be corrected. Remember, this is an Encyclopedia.

As I have noted above, the information is accurate and valid. This is an encyclopedia, and it is an encyclopedia with many, many articles. A lot of your concern seems to be that information isn't included in this article, but it is included in the encyclopedia, in the many many articles that are linked to from this general overview.

I will check that part about Spain receiving Lousiana. If you can provide a source to justify the statement that Lousiana was ceded to Spain, please do. After that date, the foundation of St-Louis and Chicago (1779) by french settlers make me beleive that Lousiana continued to evolve as a french colony. This would also explain the foundation of places like Boise as far as Idaho.

You are looking for information on the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762), by which France ceded Louisiana to Spain. The subsequent Treaty of Paris (1763) gave the part of Lousiana east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. Regarding St. Louis, Missouri, that was first settled in 1763. It may have been settled by French settlers, but it was governed by Spain, and then the United States. As to Chicago, it was first settled in 1779 by "an African-American from Sainte-Domingue (Haiti)."

Agree here. I do not where that map comes from. It seems to reduce the size of new France and therefore does not match the ones that you can find on official Quebec government sites.

That map comes from the Wikipedia entry on New France. If you have another map that shows different boundaries, please provide a link; I'd be happy to take a look at it. - Eron ^Talk 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Louisiana

Here are some indications that Louisiana was larger than on that map. Another indication, of course, is what the US claimed as being the Louisiana Purchase

I'll jump in since I just did some work on the previous map, I'm not sure what the issue is as these generally seem to agree with it. The 1750 map sources are clearly given on that maps wiki page, it limits New France to the area actually known at the time, the French claim would continue all the way to the Rockies, but that hadn't been explored yet. Regardless of which map you're looking at though roughly 2/3 went to the British and 1/3 went to Spain in 1763. Kmusser 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if the French claim goes to the Rockies, then the actual size of Louisiana is larger than they then thought & makes the percentages much closer, no? --JimWae 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size of Louisiana is larger than they thought, but not enough to make a significant change in the percentages, you're talking a difference of 200,000 sq. miles or so in a total area well over 2 million sq. miles. Kmusser 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to World Book, Louisiana Purchase was 2,144,476 km² (827,987 sq mi). Do you have figures for parts ceded to UK?--JimWae 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by a rough drawing of polygons in mapping software, so definitely not scientific but good enough to get rough numbers and for the Louisiana got (in sq. miles) 600,000 by the 1750 map, 800,000 in 1803 - the rest of New France 1,700,000 - those are all going to be underestimated since I wasn't going for precision, but should be in proportion to each other. Kmusser 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Federal" in the first paragraph?

I'd like to settle the editorial issues about the lead one at a time, if we can, folks. This seems like a good place to start: Should Canada's federal nature be mentioned in the first paragraph, or should all of that go in the same paragraph with the other stuff on about its system of government and political structure, presently the third paragraph?
So far Gregalton, Jeff3000, and myself have agreed that it belongs in the third paragraph, though our reasons are not all the same. Others? -- Lonewolf BC 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be there, but it makes for a better first line than the one that calls Canada the second biggest country. The first line should define the topic, and being big is not Canada defining characteristic. If you want to take the word "federal" out of the opening paragraph you have to come up with a new sentence to put in its place. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have reverted this edit. 'Federal country' is a kitschy description (replace with 'federation' or, grudgingly, 'federal state'), and many volumes note first and foremost that Canada is the second largest country in the world. Also note that the last sentence of the current first paragraph deals with its federal structure; A.g's recent edit duplicates content unnecessarily.

However, the introduction I've restored needn't be set in stone; I also don't mind the introduction prior to my recent edits of it or variation. For example:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a country occupying most of northern North America, and is the second largest country in the world by total area.^[1] It extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. A federation comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest.

Thoughts? Quizimodo 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not picky about the exact wording, but I can't stand the first sentence only saying that Canada is the second biggest country. The first sentence should define the topic and say what Canada is. The fact that it is the second biggest country just isn't important enough to be the first thing we say. Note the article on the United States, which opens by calling that country a "federal constitutional republic"; or the United Kingdom, which opens by calling that country "a kingdom and sovereign state". In both cases the articles do repeat the opening fact later in more detail, so I don't think that duplication is a big problem. Your suggested amendment above is a bit better in that it adds location, but I still don't think that it is right for the very first line. The location and size should be in the second sentence, and the first should define Canada in some way, by either calling it a "federal nation-state", or a "constitutional monarchy", or a "dominion", or something similar. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the lead pretty much as it is. A great deal of time and discussion have gone into creating it. The article is a featured article, so one would not expect to see major changes without discussion and consensus. As to mention of Canada's size: I don't agree with Arctic.gnome. Canada has been defined by its geography—its vast spaces. In size we are comparable to Russia, the U.S. and China. And that is interesting. Our history has been a testament to the importance of the vastness of the Canadian wilderness. Our role on the international scene is not so much related to our population as to our size and resources. The article elaborates this theme in myriad ways.

As to "federal country." Again, I like the way it is dealt with in the current lead (i.e., political description in the third paragraph). Sunray 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary to Aug 26

Drawing together the comments so far, there seems to be consensus for removing the "federal" stuff from the opening paragraph. In the following summary, I've tried to accurately show the views expressed so far, but please each confirm or correct your own. -- Lonewolf BC 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC):[reply]

In support

Lonewolf BC (16:10 & 16:27, 15 August)
Gregalton (16:28, 15 August)(unconfirmed)
Jeff3000 (17:30, 15 August)(confirmed)
Watchdogb (00:55, 22 August)(unconfirmed)
Eron (01:18, 22 August)(unconfirmed)
--Soulscanner 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditionally agreeable

Arctic Gnome (22:12, 25 August)(unconfirmed)

Stance unclear

Quizimodo

Comments:

I'm ok with it as is, and I really liked the version from about a month ago where the lead was separated into geographical,historical,organizational paragraphs.
-- Jeff3000 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This poll seems completely unnecessary given that no one seem to be arguing in favour of keeping the word federal in the opening line. I only reverted because no one added a better line to replace the one about federalism after it was taken away, making a less important line about Canada's relative size the first line. The new first line should be something like the opening line of the United States or United Kingdom articles:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a ????? occupying most of northern North America.

A more useful poll would be to figure out what should replace the ????? in that line. Looking at past discussions, it seems that some people want to keep it simple and just use the word "country" while others want to be more specific and use something like "federation", "dominion", or "constitutional monarchy".
--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone put "federal" and that other govermental/political material into the first paragraph! This is just about removing it to the paragraph otherwise covering governmental/political material, without making other changes to the lead. Such removal would leave us with simple "country". Other options would still be open for consideration. -- Lonewolf BC 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think this needs a poll - it's not that there are only two positions and I think we can try different wordings to get one that can work. "Federal country" is a disaster - it just sounds ridiculous. But if some feel that 'second largest country' is not acceptable for the first para, I've suggested the following: 'Canada is a country composed of ten provinces and three territories joined in a federation.' While I don't necessarily agree that second largest country should be banished from the first sentence - it is notable - 'biggest' is a somewhat weak opening comment (reminds of the Three Dead Trolls song, "Canada's really big!"). Grateful comments on the suggested text.--Gregalton 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that try at organising discussion went over like a lead balloon. :-(
First off, this was not meant as a poll so much as a summary of the comments made here and there by the sundry parties, and a drawing together of discussion on a particular point, with the general intent of making the editing of the lead more methodical. (Of course polls in WP are meant to be a means of ordering discussion much more than of counting votes, so perhaps it is "poll" in so far as that.)
This discussion has been rendered somewhat pointless by the reverting of the lead away from the version which it was meant to work upon. However, the general issue remains of whether not to make the opening paragraph strictly geographic -- location, bounds and exceptional size -- calling Canada simply a "country", therein, and leaving political and governmental descriptions (and other kinds of descriptions) for later in the lead. I think the former is the better approach, for reasons given already (16:10 & 16:27, 15 August 2007).
-- Lonewolf BC 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed discussion on lead (as reverted to Aug 8 version)

I've reverted the lead to the August 8 version (which had been in place for many moons). I would suggest we work out the changes on this page and get consensus. People are arguing be bold. However, WP:CON is clear that "editorial decisions are made by consensus." That is particularly important for a stable featured article. I think a poll would be in order. Arctic.gnome has suggested that the first sentence be changed to remove the reference to Canada being the second largest country in the world and Gregalton proposed that it be changed from this:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is the second largest country in the world by total area.

to this:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a country composed of ten provinces and three territories joined in a federation.

Whether or not we have a poll on this, I think that we should allow about one week for discussion. In the meantime, the lead should remain in the last version before this discussion began ((i.e., August 8) . Sunray 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't mind the long-standing introduction; my recent edits -- namely, moving the sentence 'A federation comprising ten provinces and three territories' to the 1st paragraph -- were intended as a conciliation of sorts to those who wish to include some note about Canada's federal nature upfront, a not unreasonable expectation. That being said, 'joined in a federation' is somewhat redundant, since a federation is a union of entities that ascribe to federalism.

I've suggested one alternate above:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a country occupying most of northern North America, and is the second largest country in the world by total area.^[1] It extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. A federation comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest.

Alternatively:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a country occupying most of northern North America, and is the second largest country in the world by total area.^[1] A federation comprising ten provinces and three territories, it extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. Canada shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest.

To shake things up a bit:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a federation occupying most of northern North America, comprising ten provinces and three territories. The world's second largest country by total area,^[1] it extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. Canada shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest.

Also, 'federal dominion' can be substituted for 'federation'. Thoughts? Quizimodo 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer your 'first' proposal, Quizimdo. GoodDay 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the first two; the third leaves out the word country (which I think useful for clarity - as we have seen on the talk pages ad infinitum, the (crank) view crops up with reliable frequency that it is not an independent country, and other variants on this meme). One quibble: saying "joined in a federation" does not seem redundant (they could be joined in a colonial relationship, a personal union, or some other form of union): the federation (federalism) refers to the specific form of union. Lots of countries have provinces or similar entities that are not federations. Of course, you could simply leave out the word joined: "composed of ten provinces and three territories in federation."--Gregalton 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GD. Actually, G, '(world's second largest) country' appears in the 2nd sentence of 3rd version. Regarding 'joined in federation' or similar, it is unnecessarily wordy and sounds pseudo-regal (i.e., the syntax is off to me): a 'federation' is a union, not vice versa, and Canada's federal nature can probably be better noted/described in another way. Quizimodo 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies on not phrasing properly with respect to country: I would prefer it go in the first sentence is what I meant. And on federation/union: the point is, all federations are unions, but all unions are not federations ("President's Choice: Memories of Venn Diagrams(TM). Hence, to say they are 'joined in a federation' is not redundant. Now, if you don't like the way it sounds, that's a good subjective reason (perhaps why I don't like 'federal country').--Gregalton 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like neither 'federal country' nor 'joined in (a) federation'; anyhow, boldly (but not with the intent of stirring any pots), I've made minor tweaks to the introduction, I think enough to address concerns while still succinct and methodical ('high-brow'?) as before. Thoughts? Quizimodo 15:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Quizimodo's second option best accommodates people's concerns. Version 2 is good in that it defines Canada as a country before giving any trivia stats on it, and it also mentions Canada's federal nature early. I still don't see what's wrong with the term "federal country", but the consensus seems to be against me. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be best to keep the opening paragraph geographic, call Canada simply a "country" therein, and save explanation of its governance and political structure (and of its other characteristics beyond its location, bounds and great size) for later in the lead. See my earlier comments of 16:10 (last two paragraphs thereof) and more especially of
16:27, 15 August 2007. -- Lonewolf BC 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. However, in an all-geographic opening paragraph, I strongly feel that defining Canada as a country in North America should be before the trivial statistic of it being the second largest country. Also, if we are to use themed paragraphs in the introduction, I suggest making the paragraph about Canada's political system and economic position in the world the second one (it is now third). I think that this information is (slightly) better at giving an overall definition of Canada than is the history paragraph.
--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree about your first point. See my earlier comments of 16:10, 15 August (diff provided in last post). I also agree about you second one. :-)
-- Lonewolf BC 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph geographic-only ?

Let me take another try at a one-thing-at-a time appoach to editing the lead. This is like the earlier "federal" question, but generalised:
Shall we limit the opening paragraph to fundamental geography -- location, bounds and size? This entails using simply "country" for that paragraph, and leaving for later all stuff on form of government and political organization (and anything else: society, economy, languages, etc.) I say that we should do so, for reasons given on 15 Aug (see diffs provided below). I believe that there may already be consensus for this, as shown below. As before, I have done my best to accurately show the stances expressed so far, but please each confirm or correct your own. -- Lonewolf BC 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In favour

Lonewolf BC (16:10 & 16:27, 15 Aug)
Jeff3000 (17:30, 15 Aug; 17:33, 26 Aug)(confirmed)
Watchdogb (00:55, 22 Aug)(confirmed)
Eron (01:18, 22 Aug)(confirmed)

Agreeable (surely not opposed, but not actually in favour, either)

Quizimodo (based on according edits to article 14:49-15:45, 27 Aug)
GoodDay (based on [above mentioned] edits to article).

Conditionally agreeable

Arctic Gnome (22:12, 25 Aug; 17:47, 26 Aug; 12:12, 31 Aug; 16:48, 31 Aug)
(unconfirmed; proviso is that something go before "second largest country")

Undecided

Gregalton (16:28, 15 Aug; 18:16, 26 Aug; 20:12, 26 Aug)
20:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (19:59, 26 Aug)
Sunray 18:11, 26 Aug

Opposed

Laurentien (22:01, 30 Aug)

~~Stance unclear~~

(This emptied category was only a temporary depot for those of whose opinions I felt unsure, based on the comments they'd made up till I set up this survey.
-- Lonewolf BC 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

My feeling is that references to the political structure of Canada - beyond "country" - in the opening sentence will mean that there will be a never-ending series of debates over how to describe that structure. (As anyone reviewing the, um, "spirited" conversations on this page and in archives about federation vs. dominion vs. constitutional monarchy vs. Commonwealth realm will be able to see.) - Eron ^Talk 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the geographical discription alone, is discriptive enough. GoodDay 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say my own stance is unclear. I primarily objected to the 'federal country' phrasing. Now that I look at the lead again, trying to step back, it is boring. I am sympathetic to those scarred by the Wars of Dominion, but wonder if having geography as the only thing in the first para is the best we can do - and also, whether we should allow the fear of edit wars to stop us from doing better. But at any rate, 'unclear' does accurately represent my views on the lead.--Gregalton 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved myself into the "stance unclear" column. I agree with what Gregalton has said, we should not shy away from discussion here. I do think that it would be easier to have two or three options to chose from, and liked the way Quizimodo presented options in the previous section. Why don't we revisit those options, pick a couple to choose from and vote? Sunray 16:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the survey-categories, to make them clearer:

"Stance unclear" was meant to be only a temporary place for those whose opinions I could not well make out. In other words, I foresaw that it would be emptied as people moved themselves to other categories. Instead, it became used as an "Undecided" category -- which is fine but not quite the same thing, so I have changed its title accordingly. The difference is that "Stance unclear" meant "unclear" to me, while "Undecided" refers to the person's own (considered) lack of a definite stance.
"Agreeable": I've elaborated on what this means (in parentheses).
"In support": I've made this "In favour", instead, though this does not affect the meaning.

-- Lonewolf BC 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tadoussac

Dear all,

I will try to deal with each problem one after the other. Here is the first issue which is an error in the text. In History, it was said that: "French explorer Samuel de Champlain arrived in 1603 and established the first permanent European settlements at Port Royal in 1605 and Quebec City in 1608."

There are two errors. First, this is Tadoussac that is the first permanent European settlements made by France after the failed attempts of St Augustine (Florida) and New Angouleme (New York). If you go on Tadoussac's website, you can verify that. It is even written on the french version of Canada in Wikipedia. Second, at its foundation, Port-Royal was not part of the Province of Canada but of the Province of Acadia, both part of New France. This distinction needs to be made in order to be exact. Quebec is only the second esatblishment of Canada and became its capital and the capital of New France at the same time.

If you leave those facts out, this article will carry errors. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. (Laurentien 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Once again, I do not believe that these are not errors. Every history text and reference that I am aware of defines Port Royal as the first permanent settlement in Canada. Yes, Tadoussac was settled in 1600, but that settlement did not survive, much as the settlement at Ile-St-Croix did not survive. You need to provide a reliable source to support your claim that Tadoussac is the first permanent settlement. Neither the French Wikipedia nor a municipal web site really qualifies, not when placed next to the sources that support Port Royal.

As to the distinction between the New France provinces of Canada and Acadia, that is not a distinction that really needs to be made in this general overview article. Canada - the subject of the article - includes the territory of both those provinces. Detail of their respective histories are covered in their own articles.

I haven't removed these additions, but unless you can provide a reliable source for Tadoussac, I will have to. - Eron ^Talk 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one in french. You can find the foundation date of Tadoussac in any serious history textbook. Altough, Tadoussac had difficulties, it did survive until modern times. I then really considere that it should stay there and why is it that you decide what should be removed and left ? Are you a university professor specialised in the history of Canada ? (Laurentien 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am sorry, but I don't see the reference you say you have provided. I am well aware that Tadoussac was founded in 1600. I am also aware that Tadoussac was eventually permanently settled. But there is no reference for the claim that Tadoussac is Canada's earliest permanent settlements - the only references I know of say that Port Royal is the earliest permanent settlement. My qualifications are irrelevant; what is relevant is that content in this encyclopedia must be verifiable and must be based on reliable sources. And it is on that basis that I - or any other editor - can decide what should be removed. - Eron ^Talk 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference coming from the Civilisation Museum. http://www.civilization.ca/vmnf/reper/glossair/r-ge-09.htm. That is good enough as far as I am concerned. Your qualifications are important. According to what you say, myself - as en editor - will be putting it back if you remove it. (Laurentien 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)) I do not understand why you cannot accept that Tadoussac is the first settlement. I will then call on the others and we will have to make a vote. (Laurentien 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I draw your attention to what that reference says: "Tadoussac was the first European settlement built north of Mexico." It does not say permanent settlement. This is an important distinction. Yes, Tadoussac was settled before Port Royal - as I have stated before. But it was not permanent - the initial settlement failed. - Eron ^Talk 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not want to see Tadoussac mentionned. Anyway, the facts are that Tadoussac was founded in 1600 and still exists. This defines a permanent settlement. You might identify a breach in the continuity of its existence but this does not remove the fact that Tadoussac is permanent. I still completely disagree with you and maybe to make a gesture, then I would accept to use a phrase similar to the one proposed by the Civilisation Museum. (Laurentien 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your argument is a synthesis and is considered original research and is not allowed per Wikipedia policies. Please take a little while to get familiar with how Wikipedia works. verifiability and no original research are some core policies. -- Jeff3000 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what can be considered research in my point. It is ublished fact that Tadoussac was founded in 1600 and is thus the first settlement. It is also permanent since Tadoussac exists today. Can you explain to me what is research here ? Another issue, I have seen no document explaining that Tadoussac has not been permanent. (Laurentien 22:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

By the same token, if I moved to L'anse aux meadows tomorrow and set up a tent could I claim that it is now the oldest permanent european settlement in North America? Be serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.162.162 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section of this general article on Canada is about its history. I do want there this distinction with Acadia since Canada commenced as a Province of New France which was not covering the actual Canada. This is important information. (Laurentien 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I really don't see the distinction here. The history section refers correctly to New France; if we are going to distinguihs between the provinces of New France, then we need to mention all five of them - Canada, Acadia, Hudson Bay, Newfoundland, and Louisiana - not just two. As the article New France does. - Eron ^Talk 23:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we mention about all Provinces of New France that are covered by present day Canada. So, this excludes Louisana the seperation between the two is not clear.(Laurentien 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Completely agree with Eron on these issues. The sources don't corroborate the statement in the article, and should be removed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Tadoussac is the first settlement. (Laurentien 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The sources don't corroborate the statement, and thus it cannot be included in the article. -- Jeff3000 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say so, but I have to disagree and the source do say what I have reported about it. Now, you should give a source prooving that Tadoussac disappeared and reappeared long after the other mentions. If you want to remove Tadoussac from there, you have to prove it or it will stay. You are only two who constantly refuse to acknowledge the facts that I have brought here. Wikipedia is supposed to be a consensus between some editors (who ? and hown many ?). I would like to read the opinion of others and not let only two persons be the safekeepers. (Laurentien 22:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add material. find a source that states that Tadoussac is the first permanent settlement. Combining statements as I explained above does not pass Wikipedia's policies. Secondly be aware of undue weight, which states that "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Most sources state that Port Royal was the first permanent settlement, and thus that majority view has more description than the majority view.

Finally please stop changing the lead (intro). Changes to the lead have to have strong consensus as can be seen with all the other discussions going on with it. -- Jeff3000 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be getting bogged down over the first vs. first permanent issue. There are sources for the fact that a settlement was attempted at Tadoussac in 1600. That settlement is not mentioned in this article; I am not sure whether or not it should be, as this is a summary. However, I have noticed that Tadoussac doesn't get a mention in History of Canada either. I think the first known settlement is probably worthy of mention there, alongside a description of the first permanent settlements dating from 1604. I'll find a good reference document and go put that in. - Eron ^Talk 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Cartier

In the section History, it is said that Jacques Cartier explored Canada. This is by far too general and undervalues what he represents to Canada. He is put at the same level as Johannes Caboto. In fact, Jacques Cartier made three voyages (this should be written). He landed first in Gaspe and on the next trips, he visited even the Island of Montreal where he discovered Hochelaga an Iroquois village. On his first trip, when he arrived at Gaspe, he did put a flag for the King of France and he also founded Canada as a Colony of France. This needs to be described in the text in order to show that he is much more important than Johannes Caboto who only sailed passed Terra Nova. (Laurentien 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hello 'Laurentien', would you 'please' sign your posts with 'four tildes'. GoodDay 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will be pleased to note that the main article Jacques Cartier fully describes his voyages of exploration. As to John Cabot, he didn't merely sail past Newfoundland; he landed, and he mapped the coast from there down to Nova Scotia - and he did so more than 30 years before Cartier. His activities laid the foundation for Britain's claim to Canada. - Eron ^Talk 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article as is is already too long, and the history section is one of the main reasons. As per summary style, this is supposed to be an overview article with details left to the daughter articles such as the History of Canada. The details of Jacques Cartier's voyages should be left to other articles. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of the fact that Johannes Caboto landed anywhere in Canada. State a reference which corroborate your statement. Ihe Civilisation Museum information http://www.civilization.ca/hist/cadeau/cacab01f.html, the wording leaves a lot of uncertainety to where he was exploring and there is account that he landed. I have been looking for a serious form of information which indicates that he did and nobody could produce one yet. (Laurentien 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Here's one from the Encyclopedia Brittanica: [1]

" The exact landing place has never been definitely established: it has been variously believed to be in southern Labrador, Newfoundland, or Cape Breton Island."

While it's not an exact location, it is Canada's Atlantic coast which is what the article states. Regards, -- Jeff3000 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another one Leacock, Stephen (2004). The Dawn of Canadian History: A Chronicle. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 141915866X. which states:

"The older histories used always to speak as if John Cabot had landed somewhere on the coast of Labrador, and had at best gone no farther south than Newfoundland. ... Without doubt they were the first to unfurl the flag of England, and to erect the cross upon soil which afterwards became part of British North America. ... Cape Breton island was probably the place of Cabot's landing."

Regards, -- Jeff3000 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff3000, your imformation just corroborates my words. Hence we agree on that. We have no exact information of where he landed. There is no proof of that but knowing that he sailed passed (where he sailed is also not exactly known) then we assume that has he has landed. the fact that is that he did explore something of Canada for the King of England. But it does not go further and we still need to find original documents which might help us find that. Hence, Cartier is the only one we know for sure to land in Canada since I have seen his cross in Gaspe and by the way he is the only one to give a specific account of the lost St-Lawrence Iroquois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to find "original documents" regarding Cabot's landing. Please review Wikipedia policy on original research. What we need to find is a source that is reliable and verifiable which states that he landed. And we have done that. We are not supposed to be engaged in primary research here; we are supposed to be synthesizing and summarizing what has already been determined. - Eron ^Talk 01:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to completetly disagree. There is nothing here about research, it is a question of writing somethinh which is reflects the thuth. The fact is that the source you cite is only speculating that maybe he has landed. This has not been determined, read your own citations. Please, lets be precise and the only valid wording would be to say that Caboto (by the way, he is Italian, so we should use his Italian name) has explored Canada and may have landed but it has been proven yet, so to say that he has landed is pure speculation on our part here and thus it is completely incorrect. (Laurentien 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

While Cabot's landing place is uncertain, that he landed is not. We aren not speculating; we are reporting what the sources say, sources such as this one and this one. As for his name, he is commonly known in English as John Cabot, and in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions that is how he is referred to in the article. - Eron ^Talk 00:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Riel and the metis of the prairies

I think that the history section should have a word about how the Prairies were conquered from the metis in order to extend Canada from Ontario to BC. We should not be afraid to mention the complexity of politics there that led to a war. The metis considered themselves a nation in it true sense.(Laurentien 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Canada's foundation

In the leading paragraph in the document states: "In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union of three British North American colonies."

This is not true. Firstly, Canada was founded by Jacques Cartier. He is the one who gave that name to this land. It should be mentionned in there. In 1867, Canada became a federal state which name was British North America. Even tough it was called a confederation, it was truly a Dominion: a possession of an Empire, in this case: the British Empire. It contained only four Provinces which were expanded to ten (not always in a friendly manner). This was the political system that Canada would retain until 1949 when the Empire was converted into a Commonwealth.

This phrase is somewhat shocking for French Canadians, since it fails to recognize where Canada really comes from. (Laurentien 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As the article's lead sentence states, this article is about Canada the country (i.e. political entity). Although Cartier is the source of the name (via the locals), as mentioned in the article, he did not establish the current political entity. There is plenty of detail about the meaning of Dominion elsewhere, and indeed in this article.--Gregalton 00:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada was founded as a country by Jacques cartier in an entity that was a Province of New France. I do not see why the article should be restricted to any part to its political history. The people who are going to read this article will wish to be informed about Canada in ALL of its aspects not be restricted to one political entity that only a few people have decided to limit. Canada was not formed in 1867. A specific form of political system which was the Dominion with name BNAA, part of the British Empire. It terms of geography, its was not even the actual Canada with all its 10 Provinces and territories. By the way, it should mentionned that Canada was part of the British Empire until 1949 and then became a member of the Commonwealth. (Laurentien 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is all mentioned in the article. Jacques Cartier called the area Canada and claimed it for France, as described in the Etymology. His colonization attempts failed. New France was founded by Samuel de Champlain. The territory of Canada claimed by New France can be found at Canada, New France. This article discusses the federation that was founded in 1867 (the one that includes British Columbia, a territory that neither Cartier or Champlain knew about. --Soulscanner 07:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not satisfied by the way things are turned in the Etymology. It is not clearly stated but implied. I have to totally disagree with this restriction that "This article discusses the federation that was founded in 1867" for the reason of honesty. Canada as a country has seen different stages which started with New France. I will not accept this limitation. This is wrong, because the title does not say Federation of Canada. (Laurentien 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The country that holds a seat in the United Nations and recognized internationally is the one that was founded in 1867, just as the entity called the United States is the one founded in 1776, and the one called Germany is the one unified in 1871. That is not to say that there is no history before this, or that these territories were not referred to as such before these unifications.

From the standpoint of Wikipedia, I recommenced that you accept the consensus here. It is a pretty strong one backed up by common knowledge and documented and referenced facts, and you will make yourself look foolish by indulging in contentious editing. Why not work on articles such as Jesuit Relations and Jacques Cartier, where you can go into the level of detail you are talking about. These articles need improving; this one only needs tweaking and updating as it is already a feature class article. --Soulscanner 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurentien, I have to ask if you have given this article a careful reading, or if you are just picking out bits you don't like. Several of your complaints do not reflect what is actually written. You say of Cartier that "he is the one who gave that name to this land." Very true, as the Etymology section - the first part of the body of the article - clearly states. You quote the sentence "In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union of three British North American colonies," and say this "is somewhat shocking for French Canadians, since it fails to recognize where Canada really comes from." But the three sentences immediately preceding that one describe clearly, albeit briefly, the founding roles played by First Nations, the French, and the British. I am concerned that your edits seem to be introducing a single point of view focussed on the French part of the founding of Canada, to the exclusion of other factors - as in your deletion of a reference regarding Cabot's landing here, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EronMain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read through it and you ? I could ask you the same question. I would like YOU to do careful reading of this article and realize how imprecise it is and also what it implies. This text here: "In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union..." is not correct since Canada was not formed in 1867. This is the word formed that is not correct here. It was the Dominion part of an Empire which a lot of problems to find a solution which would satisfy the two colonial nations that was formed then. I would suggest then: "In 1867, The Dominion of Canada was formed through an act of union of four Provinces, namely Ontario, Quebec, NB and NS." This means a lot more than saying that it was formed by three former british colonies (its does not add relevant information here and we have to save space) and then "... which led to the modern Constitution of 1982 with the 10 Provinces, Nunavut and 2 Territories". This is more precise. Finally, to recognize a founding role to mainly the french and their amerindians allies does not remove the contribution to all the other nations that would help make the actual Canada. Foundation and evolution are not to be mistaken. This is then wrong to say that I just want to present a single point of view. The other factors will be put in place if they reflect reality. Caboto has not necessarily landed in Canada. Most citations conjecture that he should have landed but they cannot tell where. These statement do not bring facts. The only things that are clear in most documents is that Caboto has explored the coast of Canada. (Laurentien 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As has been mentioned already, this article is about the country of Canada, which was formed in 1867. It would be wrong to say that it "was formed through an act of union of four Provinces," because immediately prior to Confederation the provinces of Ontario and Quebec did not exist. There was a single Province of Canada, which joined with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Upon Confederation, that single province then divided into two.

Well Eron, you keep removing things from your own initiative and if I keep putting them back one, where is going to lead us ? There is not even a trial of consensus, but a consensus between whom, five guys who pretend to have the right to decide what is good or bad.

Maybe the word Province is not the exact word to use here, but the fact is for a long period of time Canada was divided in upper and lower Canada also refered to as Ontario and Quebec. I would like something to be metionned since there is nothing about the period between 1763 and 1867 in the first section.

There are other issues with your most recent edits, which is why I removed them:

You replaced "France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763," with "France ceded the Province of Canada, part of New France, in 1763." This is incorrect; France had four colonies in North America: Canada, Hudson Bay, Newfoundland, and Lousiana. The first three were entirely ceded to Britain, as was most of Lousiana; the rest of Lousiana went to Spain. The only North American possession left to France after 1763 was St Pierre and Miquelon.

I disagree here with you. In 1763, France only ceded Canada to the British Empire. Moreover, the french colonies were Terra Nova (yes, the first settlers are french), Canada, Acadia and Louisiana. I do not know where you got that Hudson Bay was french. To be more exact, two french explorers helped the Hudson Bay company to establish itself there. Finally, this story about France conceding Lousiana to Spain is unproven and there is serious reference to write it. (Laurentien 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You added "As a consquence of the Patriot Revolt, in 1867, the Dominion of Canada was formed..." While the 1837 rebellions were one of the steps on Canada's long road from colony to country, they were not the only one. It is a misleading oversimplification to describe confederation as a direct result of 1837. Regarding the use of "Dominion" I would ask that you review the other discussions on this page regarding that point.

Firstly, you underestimate the importance of the movement that led to the Patriot Rebelion. There was a memento that was sent to London signed by several very influencial persons of Lower Canada asking more effective powers and the right to control a budget from which monies could be levied. The King's response was NIET. This led to the declaration of the Republic of Canada (this idea came from the USA) which resulted in the violent repression of the rebellion where villages were burned south of Montreal and several persons killed. We should talk about that in the History part. Later, Louis Lafontaine and others managed to have a motion in helping restauration of te family who suffered from the violence of the British army. This was badly accepted by English from Montreal who destroyed the parliement that was in Montreal. Then, it moved to Ottawa and commenced a period when London would try to find a political system that would solve all the problems. (Laurentien 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You added "Canada has recently signed the NAFTA, a free-trade treaty with the US, Mexico and Chile." NAFTA is described in the body of the article and doesn't really need to be in the lead. Chile is not a member of NAFTA; the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, or CCFTA, is a different treaty.

- Eron ^Talk 01:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK for the CCFTA, this was my error. (Laurentien 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

At the end of the text, why write this part: " with which Canada has had a long and complex relationship." which is by far a partial judgment. I think that in the lead it is ncessary to mention NAFTA since this has a lot of importance. (Laurentien 21:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For ease of reading, I am going to quote and respond rather than weave my comments in above.

Well Eron, you keep removing things from your own initiative and if I keep putting them back one, where is going to lead us ? There is not even a trial of consensus, but a consensus between whom, five guys who pretend to have the right to decide what is good or bad.

It isn't about "good or bad"; it is about what is factual, referenced, and verifiable, and what is not. It is about what should be discussed in detail in an overview article, and what belongs in related articles. And it is about maintaining the quality of a featured article. As I said, take a look at up this page at the discussion going on around changes to one single sentence.

Maybe the word Province is not the exact word to use here, but the fact is for a long period of time Canada was divided in upper and lower Canada also refered to as Ontario and Quebec. I would like something to be metionned since there is nothing about the period between 1763 and 1867 in the first section.

There is nothing about that period in the first section, above the table of contents, because that section is the introduction. That period is covered in some detail in the History section, later in this article, and in even greater detail in the articles History of Canada and other related articles.

I disagree here with you. In 1763, France only ceded Canada to the British Empire. Moreover, the french colonies were Terra Nova (yes, the first settlers are french), Canada, Acadia and Louisiana. I do not know where you got that Hudson Bay was french. To be more exact, two french explorers helped the Hudson Bay company to establish itself there. Finally, this story about France conceding Lousiana to Spain is unproven and there is serious reference to write it.

At its height, prior to 1713, New France included colonies in Canada, Acadia, Louisiana, and Newfoundland (or Terra Nova, or Terre-neuve, or what you will; this is the English Wikipedia so I am using the English word); in addition, France laid claim to Hudson Bay and sent several expeditions there, although no colony was established. This represented the greatest extent of French claims in North America. In the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, France ceded the mainland of Acadia (retaining Cape Breton/Ile-Royale and Prince Edward Island/Ile-Saint-Jean), Newfoundland, and gave up its claim to Hudson Bay. In 1762, France ceded western Louisiana to Spain in the Treaty of Fontainebleau. While this treaty was kept secret until after the Treaty of Paris, it did exist; here is one reference. In the following year, France ceded the remainder of Acadia, all of Canada, and Lousiana east of the Mississipi to Britain by the Treaty of Paris.

Firstly, you underestimate the importance of the movement that led to the Patriot Rebelion. There was a memento that was sent to London signed by several very influencial persons of Lower Canada asking more effective powers and the right to control a budget from which monies could be levied. The King's response was NIET. This led to the declaration of the Republic of Canada (this idea came from the USA) which resulted in the violent repression of the rebellion where villages were burned south of Montreal and several persons killed. We should talk about that in the History part. Later, Louis Lafontaine and others managed to have a motion in helping restauration of te family who suffered from the violence of the British army. This was badly accepted by English from Montreal who destroyed the parliement that was in Montreal. Then, it moved to Ottawa and commenced a period when London would try to find a political system that would solve all the problems.

I do not underestimate the importance of the Lower Canada Rebellion, but neither do I overstate it. Along with the Upper Canada Rebellion, it led to the Durham Report and the union of the two Canadas. This in turn, through the efforts of Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, whom you mention, and Robert Baldwin, whom you do not, led to responsible government in Canada, in 1848. The 1849 Rebellion Losses Bill was passed by the Baldwin-Lafontaine government and approved by the Governor-General, Lord Elgin, even though he was personally opposed to it. This did, as you note, lead to riots and the destruction of the Parliament in Montreal. (All of this is discussed in the various articles I have linked to.) It is incorrect to say that the capital moved to Ottawa after this; in 1849, Ottawa was still Bytown. It was not selected to be the capital until 1857, and Parliament did not sit there until 1866. The government structure of the the united province eventually led to a deadlock; the Great Coalition that formed in 1864 to resolve this then became a driving force behind the movement for Confederation, which had its origins in Canada, not in London.

This whole process took almost thirty years after 1837, and included a wide range of issues, events, and personalities - many of which had little or nothing to do with the Patriotes. To write, as you did, that "as a consquence of the Patriot Revolt, in 1867, the Dominion of Canada was formed," is to ignore all of this. Your sentence, quite frankly, makes it sound as though the Patriots declared independence and formed the country of Canada, in a similar fashion to the events of the American revolution. This is wholly misleading, and this is why I removed it.

At the end of the text, why write this part: " with which Canada has had a long and complex relationship." which is by far a partial judgment. I think that in the lead it is ncessary to mention NAFTA since this has a lot of importance.

I'm not sure what to say here. I can't imagine that anyone who has studied Canada and its history can dispute the fact that there is a long and complex relationship with the United States. And while NAFTA is a part of that relationship, it is far from the only part. I would dispute that it is even the most important part. What is significant for the introduction is the relationship between the two countries; the details - like NAFTA - can be covered elsewhere.

- Eron ^Talk 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basque Whalers [2]

Pardon my cheek in adding a sentence to the history section, but the Basques did leave a significant mark on Canada's early history, establishing an east coast fishery and whale industry, and engaging the local natives in a fur trade. This is what eventually drew Champlain to this area. I think it adds to the narrative in linking the early explorers and Champlain's settlement attempts. Maybe I'm wrong; won't you tell me if I'm coming on too strong ... --Soulscanner 08:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point but do you have a reference to back your point ? According to The "Relations des Jesuites", not only the Basques came, but fishermen from Britanny, Ireland and France as well. Jacques Cartier wanted to explore this land on the accounts of sailors in St-Malo that may have explored the land a lot earlier, how early was a well kept secret since nobody wanted to disclose their treasure location. (Laurentien 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I added the reference wehn I added the sentence. I think the Basques had the strongest presence, and it's backed up by archeological evidence. The article is clear that it is the Basques who controlled the fishery during this era. --Soulscanner 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to lead

Please discuss any changes to the lead on the Discussion page first as it represents a strong consensus and is likely to be reverted by one of several editors. You will likely need the consent of several editors before it goes through.

We need to come to some kind of policy to avoid contentious editing on the lead, particularly in a FA-Class article. It is a waste of energy. Any ideas? --Soulscanner 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest approach might be to add a note requesting discussion first of any edits that change the content, theme, and/or overall structure of the lead. It could also explain that major changes made without prior discussion will likely be reverted and moved to the talk page. That way, minor tweaks (spelling, grammar, word flow etc.) could proceed without causing disruption, while bigger changes would be discouraged until consensus is reached. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.--Soulscanner 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lede seem too dull?

It seems to me the lead contains more "and"s and "it"s than it used to. Such short words & short sentences strike me as dull. I think we've been thru this one before:

Presently:

It extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean, and is the world's second largest country by total area.

Proposed (and previous?):

Extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean, Canada is the world's second largest country by total area.

OR: (unless we are concerned someone might think Canada was some kind of uber-Russia [from the Pacific in the east to the Atlantic in the West?] - but then it would not be in North AMERICA, would it)

Extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean, Canada is the world's second largest country by total area.

--JimWae 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds justified. It all sounds good. ;-) --Soulscanner 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that the writing style could use some work -- I'd describe it more as choppy than as dull -- I do not much care for that "extending" sentence structure, which seems to me like artificial embellishment of what is best stated plainly. -- Lonewolf BC 04:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you recommend against the use of participle clauses?!? Do you have a style guide that agrees with that? I think I could find more style guides that suggest one avoid overuse of "it" and "and" --JimWae 05:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a hasty generalisation from what I said. -- Lonewolf BC 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, but you objected to the structure rather than the meaning, no?--JimWae 05:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to ask? The meaning is not affected, and I said "sentence structure". The hasty generalisation would be to assume that this is a general recommendation against participle clauses, rather than a specific opinion about this instance. -- Lonewolf BC 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this instance makes it any different from other participle clauses? Are you expressing a personal preference or something more? --JimWae 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read what I first wrote. -- Lonewolf BC 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IOW, keep guessing what about it is an "artificial embellishment"? --JimWae 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying lead edits

Changed to: "In 1867, Confederation united three British North America colonies to form Canada. The new nation rapidly added provinces and territories, and a gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom would culminate in the Canada Act 1982 severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament."

Here's why:

"act of union" was actually in 1840; it was "Confederation" that unified Canada
shortens sentence on unifying colonies; it flows better too;
I know the issue of Dominion has been beaten to death, but I don't think it would hurt to say that Confederation formed the Dominion of Canada; it would correctly identify the country at the time as part of the British Empire, and make a lot of the monarchists here happy; it would also add continuity to the Canada Act 1982 decolonizing Canada completely.
sneaks in part about territorial expansion, explaining that Canada gets from 3 colonies to 10 provinces rather quickly; that could be lost on people not familiar with this evolution
don't string me up by my thumbs if this is too radical a change; just hit revert of you do not like it, and we'll continue to talk here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat concur with your comments/edits, particularly regarding the situation before/after 1867 (e.g., becoming a dominion).

Relatedly, notions in the 2nd paragraph require clarification: importantly, Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867, with BNA colonies existing before that (including the Province of Canada). I wouldn't mind indicating 'The country quickly added provinces...' or similar at the end of the 2nd paragraph as before (to communicate territorial expansion, but the prior version would require 'province' to be correctly linked, I think, obviating the relevant link upfront in the 3rd paragraph.

I have also slightly changed the ordering of notions in the first paragraph: even though the 2nd sentence is now lengthy, I think it flows better.

These edits aren't a packaged deal and are not set in stone, but I do not believe the prior 2nd paragraph correctly conveyed the pre-/post-Confederation change in government structure. Thoughts? Quizimodo 18:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I've made the following (what some would say substantial) edits to the 2nd/3rd paragraphs of the introduction:

... In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federation with dominion status. The country rapidly expanded, and a gradual process of increased autonomy from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament.

Comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy ...

Perhaps the following is more agreeable, with a simplified last sentence of 2nd paragraph:

... In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federal dominion. The country rapidly expanded, and a gradual process of legal independence from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982.

A federation now comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy ...

or perhaps more controversially, but also clearer:

... In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become the federal Dominion of Canada. The country rapidly expanded, and a gradual process of increased autonomy from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament.

A federation now comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy ...

Thoughts? Quizimodo 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Canada in lede, especially capitaliZed, has always been highly contentious. Why go there in the lede, where explanation cannot be accomodated? --JimWae 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have long supported mention of expansion in lede. 1871 and 1873 are pretty rapid, but a full picture includes 1905 and 1949. I'd mention next (1871) & last (1949) only - or maybe only last. The provinces have ~~taken a back-seat~~ been stuck in the trunk for far too long in this article--JimWae 18:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Hello. No real argument regarding capitalisation: I think I have tried to accommodate (hence the current introduction and first two versions herein), while not going down the prior road. I also equivocated about how to read it -- lower case if read to convey the creation of the 'federal [nation-state] of Canada', as opposed to upper case to indicate 'federal [long-form name/title/British domain] of Canada' -- hence the change to the talk page. My basic point is that mentioning 'd/Dominion' as above may both clarify matters regarding pre-/post-Confederation changes in governance and confuse them for those who may not know what the term means (which can be alleviated by merely following the link for more information). Whatever works for most is fine with me.
- I would support a slight expansion if it clarifies matters more, hence my edits, but nothing extreme. Also recall the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and its implications on self-government. Quizimodo 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - regarding even lower-case dominion in lede - it opens a can of worms, and by itself (without explanation or forcing users to read a link) such a rare technical term is not very informative to the uninformed reader. Maybe it's simpler to just say Canada became self-governing but was still subject to UK parliament for "some things". It is longer, but avoids forcing the ininformed to click on a link--JimWae 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Why? '[F]ederation with dominion status' or similar is pretty succinct. Links are intended to inform the uninformed and, although deprecated, 'dominion' is a valid and relevant term. What you suggest may unnecessarily complicate and add text to the introduction, when a simple link would instead suffice. Even my recent edition of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, in its entry for 'Canada' (p. 220), indicates:
      - Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867, and the last step in attaining legal independence from the UK was taken with the signing of the Constitution Act of 1982.
    - If exclusion of the term is one end of the spectrum, and inclusion of the full title ('Dominion of Canada') is another, noting that Canada is a 'federation with dominion status' or similar -- as another common, reputable publication does -- seems equitable to me. Quizimodo 19:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more variant, which actually notes (the formation of) Canada by name in the 2nd paragraph:

... In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federation with dominion status. The country rapidly expanded, and a gradual process of increased autonomy from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament.

Comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy ...

To promote clarity, I have placed this in the article. Alternatively: 'In 1867, through Confederation of three BNA colonies, ...' Thoughts? Quizimodo 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal union

I see no reason why the insertion of a single sentence regarding Canada's personal union with fifteen other countries, specifically via the Queen, should be met with resistance; this sentence parallels a similar one at United Kingdom, and should, in my mind, be present in the government & politics sections of all Commonwealth Realm country articles to reflect the relationship between these countries.

If the sentence is, for some reason, deemed inadmissable here, whatever logic used as grounds for such a decision must then equally apply to the United Kingdom article. --G2bambino 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully - It's quite clear and undisputable- Canada's head of state Elizabeth II is also 'Head of the Commonwealth'. If it's mentioned at United Kingdom? then it should be here, Australia, New Zealand etc. Enough of this special treatment for Commonwealth member 'United Kingdom'. GoodDay 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be included here because it's an esoteric point of very slight importance in relation to Canada. G. originally wanted it to be taken out of the UK article on the grounds that it "isn't relevant to the UK", but when this was promptly resisted, G. now wants to insist that the material be placed in the Canada article, also. Whether it belongs in the UK article or not is a separate issue, but it does not belong in this article just because it bothers G. that it should be in the UK article but not here. It must stand on its own merits, here.
-- Lonewolf BC 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people can change their minds; it generally involves listening to someone else's opinion, comparing it to yours, and conceding that theirs has more merit. You may not be familiar with such a thing.

It really wasn't hard for me to do; my main concern at United Kingdom was that detail being in the lead. I never did, and still don't, particularly see the sentence as absolutely imperative - the UK article could survive without it. But, it's since been rightly moved, and I do now believe it has merit in that it explains, briefly, that the UK shares its head of state. If it has such merit at UK then it has merit here, unless, of course, someone can put forward valid reason to the contrary. --G2bambino 00:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support inclusion because of the above reason (it's at the UK article). But I also suppport it because of 2 facts - 1) Elizabet II is Canada's head of state and 2) Elizabeth II is head of the Commonwealth; those are undisputable facts. GoodDay 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are editors who dispute the use of the term personal union to describe the relationship of Elizabeth II with her realms beyond the UK. Personally I think it fits. There is theoretically no reason why it should not be used on the Canada page as well as others. But then again, there is no particular reason why it should be used either. To the best of my knowledge it is rarely if ever used officially or unofficially outside Wikipedia to describe the relationship of the sovereign with the realms. And in the context here, it does nothing to clarify the position of the sovereign. It is not wrong; simply unecessary- a literary extravagance, if you like. --Gazzster 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's son also committed adultery. He also has big ears. These are absolute verifiable facts. Trivia on the Queen is not particularly relevant in an article on Canada.--Soulscanner 03:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, mentioning that the monarch of Canada also serves as head of state of fifteen other Commonwealth countries hardly compares with an observation on the size of Charlie's ears. It is pertinent, for it puts Elizabeth II's role as Queen of Canada in a wider context.--Gazzster 03:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is about as relevant to Canada. It has nothing to do with her role as Queen of Canada. She could stop being the Queen of these countries, and it would not change her symbolic role in Canada or vice versa. It uses up valuable space that could be used for more relevant. You need a more compelling reason to add this. --Soulscanner 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we absolutely need the phrase? No. I reverted for two reasons: it does put the role of the Canadian monarch in context, which does say something about the Canadian monarchy and so is relevant, and 2)regarding the phrase as an idle piece and comparing it to tabloid trivia is an unfair assessment. Fifteen words take up 'valuable space'? If you want to substitute it with something better please do so. Again, with respect, I think you need to come up with a more compelling reason to remove it.--Gazzster 03:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Souscanner and Lonewolf on this issue; I think this fact would be better placed in a daughter article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is covered in depth at Monarchy in Canada, but that doesn't necessarily make a sentence unworthy here. Are we not supposed to be giving simple statements here with detail covered elsewhere? That seems to be the general format of this article. --G2bambino 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be a stickler on this. As I said, the phrase in question is not necessary. And I'm not going to risk getting blocked for it. I do stand by 'th country is a parliamentary democracy' instead of liberal democracy, because the former is the conventional manner of labelling a Westminster model government.--Gazzster 06:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's removed here, it should also be removed at United Kingdom. Like I said, the 16 Commonwealth realms must be treated equally. GoodDay 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:I've re-started a discussion at United Kingdom, concerning the mentioning of Elizabeth II's Commonwealth role. The UK shouldn't be given special treatment, concerning this subject. GoodDay 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please find another example outside of the Commonwealth realms, where the Head of State is not resident and is also the head of state of some other countries ((except Andorra which is a bit weird in this respect))? The uniqueness of this situation seems worthy of inclusion. Jooler 20:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1714-1837, the British monarchs were also Hanoverian monarchs (Elector from 1714-1815 & King from 1815-37); 1871-1918, Prussian monarchs were also German monarchs and 1815-90, Dutch monarchs were also Luxembourg monarchs. GoodDay 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. How about something in the 20th or even 21st century, or perhaps we should add the Roman and Mongol empires to your list. Jooler 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also Prussia was subsumed into Imperial Germany in 1871 when Wilhelm was proclaimed Emperor, they are not separate countries there was one Reichstag. Jooler 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Irish Free State from 1922 to 1937/1949. nat^tang 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're still giving me history. Jooler 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what's wrong with that? Why does there have to be a 'current multiple monarchy'. What's wrong with the Commonwealth example? GoodDay 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's saying anything's wrong with the example; I think he's stating that in the present day the personal union of the Realms is unique (aside from Andorra), and its uniqueness means the shared nature of Canada's head of state deserves a brief mention here. --G2bambino 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (as does Jooler), the Canadian monarchs Commonwealth role should be mentioned. But other examples of 'multiple monarchies' aren't needed to back this inclusion (which is what Jooler, seems to be suggesting). GoodDay 21:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G2 is correct. I'm saying that this uniqueness in the modern world, if nothing else, is enough to make it worthy of inclusion. Jooler 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[added simultaneously with Jooler's response above:] I don't read his words as supporting the inclusion of examples of previous personal unions; to the contrary, it seems (though he can correct me if I'm wrong) that Jooler's saying the lack of other contemporary examples is justification for the inclusion of mention of Canada's personal union with other nations via EIIR. I can see the point in that. --G2bambino 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Jooler, I thought you arguing for exclusion (due to lack of other contemporary examples). GoodDay 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reverted lead to consensus version~~
Please discuss changes to lead and gain consensus before editing. Canda did not gain dominion status in 1907; this assertion is plain wrong. Dominion status was not recognized within the British Empire until 1907 (see reference in Dominion article); this was part of the gradual parting of the ways with Britain refered to in the article. --Soulscanner 03:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what you're referring to. You will note that, actually in response to your (nonconsensual) edits, I did bring this up above, with citation: 'Dominion' (as that article indicates below) was the title conferred onto Canada in the BNA Act of 1867 (AKA Constitution Act, 1867): it and other entities were collectively acknowledged as dominions through the Imperial Conference of 1907.[3] Also see Canada's name. Quizimodo 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I have edited the 2nd paragraph. In further support of this -- specifically regarding clarification of the existence of 'Canada' before Confederation and the concomitant province/federation (dominion) distinction before and after -- I direct editors to the entry for 'Confederation' in the Canadian Encyclopedia, which also refers to the existence of Canada before Confederation (emphasis added):
Confederation, the union of the British North American colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Canada (Canada being an earlier 1841 union of Lower Canada and Upper Canada), was achieved 1 July 1867 under the new name, Dominion of Canada. It was soon expanded with the addition of Manitoba and the North-West Territory (15 July 1870), British Columbia (20 July 1871), Prince Edward Island (1 July 1873), and ultimately Newfoundland (31 March 1949)....

It also elaborates refers to the country's expansion, in pleasant parallel to recent notions/edits here, so I've restored that notion/link too.

I'm flexible regarding the precise wording, but I truly believe this dichotomy must somehow be more clearly laid out than in the preceding/long-standing version. Quizimodo 16:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then get a consensus on the talk page before changing it again. The longstanding version represents a consensus. We've been through this before. The preamble explicitly states that Canada is not to be referred to as a Dominion except in the etymology section. --Soulscanner 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you alone seem to have difficulty with the wording or notions at play. You have not adequately dealt with the points above. As well, given the passage of weeks regarding this point of contention, amidst your singular reversions to an inaccurate version without comment, it is you who is seemingly editing without consensus, stated or implied. Quizimodo 12:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the relevant talk page. I was reverting to a consensus version that had been here for years. Poll below should clarify. --Soulscanner 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The poll you have linked to asks what the country's name is, and thus is not really applicable to the current debate about the pre-/post-Confederation dichotomy. As well, then and now, any poll cannot -- will not -- trump information that is readily attributable to common, reliable publications. I have satisfied the burden of evidence required, you have not. Quizimodo 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "preamble" here specifically refers to the use of "Dominion" in relation to the name of the country. The paragraph in question does not speak at all about the country's name; instead it briefly outlines the country's history, part of which was July 1, 1867, when the Province of Canada united with three other colonies to become a confederated Dominion of the British Empire. Perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge of what a Dominion was, how Canada was the first of them, and/or stop treating the "preamble" as some kind of draconian bar on the word "dominion."

I've attempted, in order to dispel any concerns about readers possibly thinking that Canada remains a Dominion, to very briefly explain that Canada evolved towards statehood after 1867. It may still need tweaking, however. --G2bambino 03:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment, G. Relatedly, for our collective scrutiny, I will paste the definition of 'dominion' I placed on that article's talk page from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2004, p. 443):
do•min•ion noun 1 sovereign authority; control. 2 the territory of a sovereign or government; a domain. 3 the title of each of the self-governing territories of the Commonwealth. 4 a (the Dominion) hist. informal Canada. b Cdn. (Nfld.) hist. Newfoundland as a self-governing part of the Commonwealth prior to its entry into Canadian Confederation in 1949. [Old French from medieval Latin dominio -onis from Latin dominium from dominus lord]

Sense 3 is of relevance here (also see the Merriam-Webster entry for the word); thus, the word needn't be capitalised in this context.

As well, your edit regarding 'independence' sounds fine, though I prefer the prior wording (which is simpler). :) Quizimodo 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Give the lead wider attention~~
I've seen alot of conflict over the lead in the past while. May I suggest, if you guys want to, making a community-wide discussion about this. This may put this to bed, because it seems to have exploded into extreme analysis since the argument over including "dominion" in the lead began. If you feel necessary, add {{RFChist list | section=section name | reason=a short summary of the discussion | time=~~~~~ }} to a new section preferably something like "Request for comment: Changes in the lead". This will get the views of various editors across the community, and hopefully get some consensus on some issues. Cheers. -- Reaper X 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Pronounciation"~~
You must include the proper IPA:pronounciation in the Article that Canada, is of "North-America" as long as it is in correct "Pronounciation" "Ah"-merica (Pertaining to their Continent) and not "A"-merica (Pertaining to the U.S.A) Intuitionz 00:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Quebec dispute~~
I don t see any particular reference to the Quebecois, the french speaking minority of Canada which constitute more than 25 per cent of canadians and are semi officially recognised as a nation within a nation. There are references under the entry Quebec but shouldn t it be some references for this matter under Canada also as Quebec is not just a simple province but the centre of the franch speaking canadians who might claim at some point in the future the right for self - determination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the issues around Quebec and separatism are briefly discussed in this article, with wikilinks to the appropriate main articles. Remember that this is a summary article on Canada as a whole; it should not go into detail on any subject. - Eron ^Talk 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Quebec and the Quebecois beeing the 2nd biggest province of Canada is far from being a minority itself. Specifically the french community is a minority of canada and that includes the french speakers outside quebec. Besides that, beeing in the younger 30 years old age group, you have to know that we dont want in the future, right for self determination, thoses were our father and grand-fathers. It's now clearly becoming the older generation against us... and since we are replacing more and more political positions... well, I really expect this subject to be part of history, maybe it was fitting at the time, but since then things have got better anyway and Quebec is actually doing very good right now and overall, I'm a Quebecois that thinks proudly that we bring something special of our own and that combined with everyone else in the country, all together making what Canada is... Quebec is the root of Canada where everything started and every Canadians from the early settlers, french or english, are historically or genealogically connected to quebec at some point. Actually, it's so out of context that I don't even know or remember why this came up in the past... --Slamcool 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Canada lies in Arctica?~~
Taught in Canadian Schools and published on older Canadian globes and atlases, Canada lies in the Continent of Arctica. Can someone clarify why Arctica is not mentioned in the Article? Also, can someone please scan a copy of your Canadian Atlas showing Canada lying in Arctica for proof/refrence? As I have only an older globe which is unscanable due to it's form. Intuitionz 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the ancient continent Arctica ceased to exist about 1 billion years ago, it is rather outside the scope of this article. It is discussed in Canadian Shield. - Eron ^Talk 02:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We just assume only in America it does not exist. As far as Outer-America is concerned. It does. The Country of Greenland, Russia, and Canada still recognize Artica. Shame on you! Intuitionz 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask you to please be civil if you want to discuss this, thanks very much. By the way, Greenland is not a country. And I'm fairly certain Canada doesn't "recognize" the former continent of Arctica. And what exactly is "Outer-America" anyway? - Eron ^Talk 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Canadian and studied geography quite extensively in High School and beyond, and I have to remark that I have never heard of Canada belonging to a continent called "Arctica". There was once a pre-historic continent called Arctica billions of years ago, but it no longer exists in the capacity it once did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Subsections~~
I added a couple of subsection headings. These have been removed, with the note that "adding sections unneccessarily lengthens article and departs from suggested template for a country." I was asked to discuss it here before re-adding so... here I am.
The subsection headings I added were "Prehistory and European settlement" and "Twentieth century" in History, and "National Symbols" and "Sports" in Culture. No new content was added (except for a half sentence about the 1976 and 1988 Olympics to sports). I don't think that a few extra headings unnecessarily lengthen the article. In fact, given the length of the article, I think subsection headings are necessary to organize the content and make things easier to find. I have answered more than a few questions or comments on this talk page from editors who were concerned that certain things weren't discussed in the article when in fact they were. This led me to believe that the article could use a couple more headings to aid navigation.
If subheadings are not appropriate, then they all need to be removed. It is poor practice to have a heading (e.g. "History" or "Culture") with only one subheading ("Confederation" and "Language" respectively). That isn't giving structure to the article - if the sections are large enough to need breaking down, they need proper breaking down.
I'm not sure what the "suggested template" for a country is. I have reviewed a few other country articles - United States, Germany, Peoples Republic of China, Brazil, for example - and they all have sections and subsections (including in their "History" and "Culture" sections. I really don't see what the problem is here. - Eron ^Talk 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Soulscanner was referring to as the template was the Country wikiproject which doesn't have any subsections. In my opinion the article looks better without subsections, and those subsections that existed before (except for the history section subsection) should be top level sections. However, I don't feel strong either way. Looking through other featured countries here is a lits of those that have subsections and those that don't:
Have subsections: Belgium (many), Cambodia (a few), Germany (many), Libya (little more than a few), South Africa (a few), Turkey (only for history) (total: 6)

Don't have subsections: Australia, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Chad, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Naura, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru (total: 13)

It seems like the majority of the featured articles don't have subsections. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read previous discussions on section headings. I guess my main point of this is that you need a very strong argument and gather a very strong consensus in order to change heading titles on a well-established article like this one. My tendency would be to delete or condense material if you find sections too long and unmanageable. For example, the sports section could be shortened to one or two sentences that provide wiki links to Sports in Canada for those wanting more information. Another matter to keep in mind is that the Contents box needs to be kept manageable. Compare, for example, the England contents box to the Australia one. --Soulscanner 06:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have read the previous discussion you linked to. I have also reviewed the countries template. In neither of those did I find any references to subsections or any statements that they should be avoided. The countries template does not show them, but that doesn'tnecessarily mean they are undesireable. I assumed they weren't mentioned because the subsection headings that might be used would differ widely across countries. I would also note that I did not "change heading titles" - I left the existing section headings exactly as they were, and in the order that they were, respecting the template structure. I simply looked at two long sections, sections which already included subsections, and added a couple more for ease of navigation and to better structure the article.

I am not wedded to the idea of subsection headings and I can certainly live without the ones I added. But if the consensus is that we shouldn't have subsections, then I think we shouldn't have any. "Confederation" and "Language" should either be promoted to sections in their own right, or deleted as headings. As it stands, the History section in particular looks odd; the Confederation subsection is in there all by itself and would lead one to believe that everything that comes after - including the whole 20th century - is part of that topic. As I said above, a section with only one subsection is indicative of a problem in the article structure that should be addressed. - Eron ^Talk 15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the confederation subsection heading looks weird, and should be removed, as well as the other subsection headings being made into full section headings. Regards, -- Jeff3000 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. There are four subsection titles right now: Confederation, in History; Law and Foreign relations and military, in Politics and Government; and Language, in Culture. I propose to delete Confederation, and to promote the other three to section titles. This would eliminate the use of subsections completely from this article. Any comments? - Eron ^Talk 01:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. -- Jeff3000 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections if you feel strongly about it, but I believe these represent the few specific subsections that are recommended in the countries template. I'm not married to the template, but I do recognize it as a strong argument for anyone who would wish to retain the current structure. I encourage you to review the template carefully before making any changes. It's been my experience that one editor changing sections provokes other editors to make their own, shuffling the article like a deck of cards. Please take that into account too! --Soulscanner 05:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have carefully reviewed the article template at Wikiproject Countries. I didn't see any recommended subsections. I did see several places where the current article departs from this template - Government and politics vs Politics; Provinces and territories vs Subdivisions; Geography and climate vs Geography; and the addition of sections on Etymology and International rankings. At this point, I feel like my original edits were criticized and reverted for not following a template that the article already departs from. I also note that the main page on the Wikiproject includes the statement "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." With that in mind, I'm going to go ahead with my proposed changes. We'll see what people think. - Eron ^Talk 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or I would make those changes if the article weren't protected because of edit warring over "Dominion". Can't we all just get along? - Eron ^Talk 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a summary article, and per the country wikiproject, subsections should be unnecessary. That being said, some of the sections are rather bloated (e.g., 'History'), which is probably why subsections like 'Confederation' may be in place. Subsections have the advantages of making things appear more organised and of breaking up text: otherwise, users are more likely to glaze over walls of text entirely. Trim content, or (while tweaking the project guidelines) add subsections. Quizimodo 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like nothing more than to add subsections. I tried to, and was reverted and told that subsections should not be used. At this point, I just want consistency in the article. If subsections are not to be used, we should not use any. Sections with only one subsection are just wrong. - Eron ^Talk 23:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ok, then I think we should prune the 'History' and any other sections that are profuse with text: editors cannot have their cake and eat it too. :) Quizimodo 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Based on the above discussion, I'm removing/upgrading those subsection headings. And then I'm going to take a close look at the History section to see if there is anything that can be trimmed. - Eron ^Talk 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Poll: Should Canada be refered to as a Dominon in lead?~~
~~I thought this issue was dealt with at a special talk page set up specifically to address this issue. Why are we going through this again?~~
—Comment: Do not obfuscate -- this poll (regarding the country's name) is rather dissimilar from the current issue, stated further below. Quizimodo 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think editors can decide how similar these issues are. Let's not patronize them. --Soulscanner 09:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I'm attempting to enforce this consensus, but it seems that unless there is more clarification the lead will be subject to further contentious editing. So lets clarify:
Should Canada be referred to as a dominion in the lead?
It seems there's a consensus here that Canada is not a dominion; that would indicate to me that it should not be referred to as such except in certain special contexts

Clearly, it is not Canada's official name or title anymore. It is not important enough to mention in the lead.

In 1867, dominion referred to any overseas British colony. It is redundant to say Canada became a dominion. It is enough to say that Canada (the country) was created. Now, it is just wrong to call Canda a British colony.

The etymology clearly explains the context and history of the usage "Dominion".

~~No - as outlined above --Soulscanner 05:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
No - this is a contentious term & should not appear in lede since lede cannot be explicit enough about what the term means, & does not mean, & whether or not the term is still applicable. Having it there can only be misleading or puzzling. Instead of In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federal dominion let's have something like Through Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were united into a single entity (or country) that was still somewhat controlled by the United Kingdom. --JimWae 08:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wait, does this poll propose changing the current text in the part of lede "Canada became a federal dominion." is if so, I vote yes. (that text in find imo, and should remain) Otherwise, if this poll is referring to the debate to have dominion elsewhere in the lede, i vote no Brian | (Talk) 08:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian (talk • contribs) [reply]
No. This poll asks whether Canada should be referred to as a dominion in the lead given that there is a consensus that Canada is no longer a dominion (i.e. a colony) of Britain. --216.208.208.135 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC) --Soulscanner 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (Signature added, sorry for confusion)[reply]
Actually: this poll asks merely whether or not to include 'dominion' in the lead. It just so happens that it is also based on a number of assumptions which above and below have been proven to be erroneous. Is it now a British colony? Of course not. Is it a dominion, and did it become one upon Confederation? Well, yes. Quizimodo 17:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I added my signature above. My mistake. The question clearly asks if Canada should be referred to as a dominion in the lead. I was clarifying the question, and reiterating why I think it is an issue. Thanks. --Soulscanner 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that you commented (anonymously) herein, but that doesn't change commentary/positioning above and below. Quizimodo 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I was saying is that it somewhat presumptuous to tell me what the poll was asking: I know what I what I meant to say. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~No - the term is not understood by all, and is best discussed throughout the rest of the article and not in the lead. -- Jeff3000 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yes, per Brian, as it is currently framed. This has been discussed, a number of options proposed, and an effective introduction is now in place. Consensus can change -- moribund (and irrelevant) polls notwithstanding, there were numerous times in the past when 'dominion' survived for lengthy periods in the lead. The instigator of this poll and naysayers have yet been unwilling or unable to reasonably persuade or demonstrate why this term, which remains in the constitution, should not be included. The prior wording was simply inaccurate: Canada existed as a colony/province before 1867, and inclusion of this term in the current context is simply a better, clearer way (much better than the contorted wording proposed by JimWae above) to explain and distinguish the federal change in organisation/governance brought about by Confederation. Moreover, in correction of misconceptions above, the Canadian Encyclopedia and other reputable sources clearly indicate that 'dominion' remains Canada's official title. In fact, the poll's instigator opened the can of worms and originally proposed including the disused long-form title (see above):
"I know the issue of Dominion has been beaten to death, but I don't think it would hurt to say that Confederation formed the Dominion of Canada; it would correctly identify the country at the time as part of the British Empire..."

I -- who does not support including the longer title -- merely made conciliatory edits to address that, and here we are. The only editor who has reverted this notion in the last couple weeks, during which prior commentary above was unaddressed, has been the poll's instigator. Also, myself and G2bambino have pointed out that this editor seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding usage of the term. I actually reject that inclusion is contentious, based on source matter, and the burden of evidence now falls on opponents. Given the above, this poll smacks of hypocrisy (or confusion, in the least) or retaliation for being called to account. I guess it does hurt a little too much now.

And, for those who say that the term may not be understood or is somehow cryptic, that's what the piped link to the article is for -- this is a wiki. In addition to above sources, even the Canadian Oxford Dictionary describes the country as having "[become] a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867." Let's just get on with it. Quizimodo 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If people do not show up for the discussion, it does not mean that consensus has changed. I ask you to refer to wiki's policy on Asking the other parent:
A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. In this situation you may find that any changes you make to the article are quickly reverted by people outside the new talk page discussion.
In otherwords, it is up to you to make sure that people show up for the discussion, which should be on the talk page devoted to that. The comments were left unadressed and your edits reverted because there was already a consensus, arrived at after a long debate, that Canada's name was "Canada", and not the "Dominion of Canada". This was confirmed by 25 Wikipedia editors, and is clearly addressed in the Etymology section and in the preamble to this page, which have NOT been edited and hence represent a long standing consensus.

To me, that consensus would indicate to me that these edits to the lead represent a refusal to accept consensus expressed in two other places in the article, and backed up by discussions on this very topic in the archive. This poll was an attempt to clarify that, and as it stands 8 editors think these edits are contentious, 3 do not. So really, I do not see how the expressed consensus has changed: the Etymology and preamble are still there, unchanged, saying that Canada's name is "Canada". Do you or do you not accept this clearly expressed consensus?
Finally, (although I do not believe this is necessary) the Canadian Encyclopedia contradicts the Oxford reference: In 1914 the king declared war on behalf of the entire empire, but the Dominions (a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members) decided individually the nature and extent of their participation. [[4]]. In otherwords, although Dominion was used to refer to Canada, the term only described self-governing colonies between 1907 and 1948 after an Imperial conference. It is not clear what status "Dominion" conferred on Canada before then, although it's clear that the word had previously been used interchangeably with "colony". It is a vague term in 1867, and it changed meaning many times as British colonies asserted their independence. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes— I don't have a problem with how the lead paragraph reads now. It makes it clear that after 1982 Canada was in no way dependent on the United Kingdom. You could add "and is no longer considered a dominion of the UK" if it makes some feel better. —MJCdetroit 17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have placed a 24 hour protection on this article, to stop this Dominion editwarring. If people don't start working together, this article may be a candidate to lose FA status, for been a unstable article Brian | (Talk) 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good idea -- it appears that one editor alone is jeopardising this article's status, and it isn't me. Quizimodo 14:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in the lede. The word "dominion" seems to angry up the blood in a subset of editors. I believe that its use, with respect to Canada, is appropriate in certain contexts. I also believe that the lede, given the requirement for brevity, will have difficulty providing that context. I do understand that we need some way to succinctly yet accurately describe what happened to the colonies on July 1, 1867. We can't say that they became independent, as they did not, completely. I suggest something like the following: "In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada began a gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom. This culminated in the Canada Act 1982, which severed the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament." (I'd like to sneak a reference to the Statute of Westminster in there, but I don't expect that to fly.) We can leave explaining the Dominion of Canada to the History section and the main article on Canadian confederation. - Eron ^Talk 04:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that, given the inaccuracy with the prior introduction, its current use in the introduction is appropriate and also brief. However, I believe that the sentence you have concocted is passable in the interim, though it lacks the detail of the current version. I also agree that some quick reference should be made to the Statute of Westminster, since that was an important step in the process of autonomy -- as well, I believe this can be better done in the current version, but not as easily with your proposed text. :) Quizimodo 14:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Passable"? I'm feeling damned with faint praise here. I do like a challenge, though. How about something like this: "In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada began a gradual process of autonomy from the United Kingdom. This continued with the (passage of the) Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminated in the Canada Act 1982, which ended legal dependence on the British parliament." - Eron ^Talk 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- passable, acceptable, thumbs up (grudgingly). :) Your second deluxe version as well; I've made a few tweaks. I say 'grudgingly' because neither version clearly communicates that Canada became, well, a federation/dominion in 1867. Quizimodo 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~No per EronMain. nat^tang 08:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
No- There seems to be a view in Wikipedia, across a broad range of Commonwealth related topics, that dominion is a valid term to categorise former dependencies of Great Britain. This, despite the fact that these countries do not use the term themselves, and the British government used it last in 1949. 'Dominion' was an ambiguous term; it really did not have any specific legal definition. Broadly it covered a constituent of the British Empire which might be autonomous or even independent. But there is no longer a British Empire, and without that context, 'dominion' has no meaning apart from whatever meaning the writer chooses to give to it.--Gazzster 12:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an inaccurate 'point of view' which is clearly obviated by source matter provided above --from the federal government and elsewhere -- and is perpetuated by editors who frankly do not know any better. Quizimodo 14:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer: I as talking of the concept of 'dominion'; not of the title of Canada. If a country chooses to use dominion as part of its title, well, that's using the term in a very specific context. But the concept of dominion, as I say, has no longer any meaning. And I respectfully point out it is not a 'point of view': it is a fact. The Empire no longer exists; the Commonwealth nations under Elizabeth II do not use it (except perhaps as an official title- which, as I have said, is in a specific context); the British government no longer uses it.--Gazzster 02:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see no need to use the word "dominion" in the lead but I disagree with the "whereas"es in this poll. Canada is a dominion. It is a self-governing, autonomous state in the Commonwealth. Canada's title has not been replaced by anything else. In 1867, "dominion" was pretty much invented to refer to the new independent state of Canada which would, as envisioned, unite all the British North American colonies. British colonies were not referred to as dominions. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks; in general agreement, except regarding current inclusion. You might want to head on over to 'dominion' and correct the inexactitude of that article's introduction. Quizimodo 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think it is correct to say that Canada is a Dominion. It certainly was one, at Confederation. Dominion status was created at that time to describe the status of a former colony that, while self-governing, still had certain legislative ties to Britain. As Canada evolved, gradually severing those ties, the use of the term Dominion declined. Today, there are no official government documents that call it a Dominion. Yes, acts can be found that use the term, but none passed within the last fifty years or so use it. Canada, today, is a fully independent country. The term Dominion has a historical value, but does not describe the country as it exists today. - Eron ^Talk 16:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, then, is the designation today? The title chosen for the new confederation was "dominion" rather than "kingdom". Are we a kingdom now? We share a monarch with the UK but we are not a part of that kingdom. "Republic" obviously does not apply. "Dominion", as a self-governing, independent member of the Commonwealth is and was the correct title. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I think Canada is Canada. Governmentally speaking, it is a federal constitutional monarchy, but the country is just Canada. Current use (or disuse) of the term dominion supports that. At the time of confederation there were still a number of limits to Canada's independence - limits that meant it was less than a fully independent country, but more than a colony. Those limits aren't there any more. - Eron ^Talk 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a number of the sources above indicate, it is in the Constitution Act, 1867 and was retained in the Constitution Act, 1982 -- 'Dominion' remains Canada's official title. The precise meaning may very well have shifted over time and since 1982, but it is wholly correct to say that Canada was and is a dominion (read: a former self-governing state (or quasi-state) within the British Empire, and a title for this self-governing state within the Commonwealth). Quizimodo 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The word "dominion" does not appear in the text of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Constitution Act, 1867 states that the uniting provinces "shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada." It further states that "the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act." As I read it, the use of "Dominion" in the first phrase describes the form of political entity - a Dominion, as opposed to a Kingdom, or a Republic -that was being created. The second states that the name of the country is Canada. I realize that this is one interpretation, and that there are others. But this is sort of my point about leaving it out of the lede - there are still differences of opinion on this, it isn't perfectly clear, and a brief introduction is not the place to open up that can of worms. - Eron ^Talk 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You and others may disagree, and I may agree with your interpretation, but please refer to the references in my initial response above (e.g., Canadian Encyclopedia), which indicate the opposite; also see Dominion#Canada, Canada's name#Use of Canada and Dominion of Canada, and those talk pages. Quizimodo 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Accepting consensus Clearly, for a third time, you express contempt for the consensus about Canada's name. Please restrict discussion to the appropriate area. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what consensus? I am not challenging per se what Canada's name is: I am only attempting to clarify verbiage and notions that you continue to obfuscate regarding the title and change in governance in 1867, and your incorrect representations of that information. Clearly, perhaps you should restrict discussion to the appropriate area, instead of confusing the issue and demonstrating hypocrisy. Quizimodo 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No: This has been discussed at great length on this page, extensive research completed and consensus achieved to not use the term "dominion" in the lead. An article was established with a section on Use of Canada and Dominion of Canada. That about covers it. Sunray 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may have been a prior poll regarding the country's name, but please point me to the consensus regarding the current notion above. In fact, not one source has been provided to dispute the assetion, and the only consensus regarding this specific notion may be revealed through this poll. However, since the original premise of the poll is rather narrow -- if not inherently flawed -- and perhaps in conflict with Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability and original research/assessments regarding the term, the results may be contestable. Quizimodo 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please refer to the article I mentioned. It sets the case pretty succinctly. I've voted "no" and stand by that. Sunray 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm intimately aware of the article, but your answer is unsurprisingly evasive regarding other points. You are entitled to your opinion, but it limits me not. Quizimodo 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - as per others here, a term that evokes such controversy and which is not settled should not be used in the lede.--Gregalton 18:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~:No - if 'Dominion' is going to cause this much disruption, then it's best to omit it. GoodDay 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]~~
Yes - Canada was a Dominion after 1867, that's a fact. Question is, when did it ceased to be a Dominion. GoodDay 21:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arguably, only one editor has been disruptive -- shall we omit that person too? Quizimodo 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm too lazy to check the 'history' of this article; Who's the editor in question? GoodDay 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, when did Canada ceased to be a Dominion? GoodDay 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Well, Canada actually never official declared that it was no longer the "Dominion of Canada", The government just began to drop reference to the name Dominion in the late 1950s and I think the name was removed from our currency the same time the loonie was introduced. nat^tang 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name was removed from the currency long before the loonie. I've got a couple of Centennial dollar bills and there is no Dominion to be found on them. - Eron ^Talk 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dominions status only existed within the British Empire between 1907 and 1948, after which the dominions became Commonwealth Realms. [5] --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - with attention paid to proper context, there's no reason to banish the word "Dominion" from the lead, which is a completely different issue to the lead asserting the country is named "Dominion of Canada." As Quizimodo has rightly pointed out, Soulscanner has confused this issue by focusing on the latter as opposed to the former, and has thus undermined this vote from the get-go. --G2bambino 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I remind you to assume good faith, and follow Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Soulscanner has not undermined the vote, and my reading of the majority of the comments above is that regardles of Canada is/was a dominion (small 'd') that most believe that it is complicated enough that it is best not to introduce it in the lead and let it be explained in the ariticle. -- Jeff3000 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the "reminding," unecessary as it is. The vote is indeed undermined when the person who opened it clearly misunderstands the distinction between saying the country is presently a Dominion (captal "D"; we know it still is a small "d" dominion) or that the country's name includes the word "Dominion," and saying the country became a Dominion upon confederation. Nobody's tried to assert either of the former two, only the latter; so why have this particular vote - again - at all? To say such, and ask such, is neither a personal attack nor an assumption of bad faith; it is merely pointing out a misunderstanding and questioning the consequences of it. --G2bambino 15:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confusing no issues, although I recognize that the issue is not clear in all people's minds; this poll is precisely to clarify the issue. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is indeed the case, why then the unecessary pointing out that Canada is not now a Dominion, Canada's name is not "Dominion of Canada", etc., etc.? Nobody's clamed the contrary in this case. --G2bambino 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've reviewed the comments and given this a lot of thought. As G2bambino notes, there is a big difference between describing Canada's status as a dominion at the time of Confederation, and using Dominion as part of the name of Canada. I have made a couple of attempts to revise the key sentence for this without using the D word. Here's a version that includes it:
"In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a self-governing dominion. This began a gradual process towards autonomy from the United Kingdom, continuing with the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act 1982, which ended legal dependence on the British parliament."

This clarifies Canada's status in 1867 (not a colony, not quite independent) and highlights the key feature of dominion status (self-government) without making any claims as to what Canada is or should be considered today - i.e. it puts the use of the term dominion in the correct historical context. (I hope.) - Eron ^Talk 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Well, it doesn't. Dominion up to 1867 referred to any overseas colony. Hence "One Dominion under the name of Canada" could mean "One Colony under the name of Canada". It wasn't until 1907 that dominion explicitly referred to self-governing colonies (See Canadian Encyclopedia [6]), giving dominions a 'status'. Did this change the defintion retroactively? The question is inane. In 1919, these self-governing colonies signed a peace treaty. In 1931, these dominions became independent. In 1948, they would be renamed Commonwealth Realms to escape the colonial stigma of the word dominion, and the word lost any legal meaning. People referred to Canada as a Dominion out of colonialist nostalgia, and those who emphasized Canada's independence called it Canada. See references on dominion page. The term is complex and vague, and meant different things at different times. Also, saying that Canada became a Dominion in 1867 is either meaningless, redundant, or both because it's constituent colonies were in fact all dominions, even in the sense that they were all self-governing. There is also no firm definition of what is meant by this "title". That is why it is best left to have this vague term to the Etymology and the article Dominion where this vagueness can be discussed in detail.
Since most people here find the word is a) contentious, b) unfamiliar c) vague, is a clear indication that the word is antiquated and out of common use. This fact is backed up in the Etymology section and on the dominion page, which represents an established consensus. The word thus seeds more confusion than clarity; instead, colony, self-governing colony or independent country should be used, as appropriate. Emphasizing the word Dominion would be pushing a marginal monarchist POV by giving the word more prominence than it deserves and perpetuate a falsehood that the word is generally understood (I think this whole dsicussion pretty much proves that point).
As for it being a "big" difference between the two questions, I think the difference is small and largely academic. The two contentious editors that stand pretty much alone in their insistence on including the D-word in the lead also express continued contempt for the consensus about "Canada's name", indicating strongly that this is largely an extension of that arguement. One editor has now shown clear bad faith (see above). --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title "Dominion" wasn't used prior to 1867; it was coined specifically for Canada in 1867 and then was applied to the other areas of the Empire that followed Canada's example in becoming self-governing. This would be because these other countries became what Canada already was; what you suggest, Soulscanner, somewhat puts the cart before the horse.

Beyond that, it's rather disingenuous of you to assert that I am both contentious and contemptuous. I have valid reason for arguing against the censorship of a historically and contextually accurate word simply because of embarassment and confusion, and yet I have never once - nor ever would - cause issue over Canada's name. Perhaps you should check your facts more closely. --G2bambino 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Let's try keeping it simple and based on facts and clear definitions that can be commonly understood and accepted without reference to esoteric references to colonial history:~~
"In 1867, Canada was founded when [[Canadian Confederation|Confederation] united three British North American colonies to form a federation. A gradual process of independence/ culminated in the Canada Act 1982 severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament.
~~It's concise, short, gets the main idea across, and contains no vague or ambiguous terms, and is completely factual. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have reviewed the reference you provide, and I do not believe that it supports your contention that "it wasn't until 1907 that dominion explicitly referred to self-governing colonies." You linked to the Commonwealth article in the Canadian Encyclopedia; it speaks of "the Dominions (a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members)" (emphasis added). This suggests that its use to define a self-governing colony originated with Canada in 1867, and that the term was generalized to other self-governing colonies later. The Canadian Encyclopedia article on dominion states that the term was suggested by Sir Leonard Tilley when the British government balked at the suggested title "Kingdom of Canada". The term dominion does not appear to have been used in reference to any colony prior to 1867.

I can see both sides of the argument for including or not including the term. It is correct to say that Confederation joined three provinces in a federation. It is also correct to say that it joined them in a dominion - this is the exact word used in the BNA Act: "shall form and be one Dominion" - not "one Federation". The term federation is descriptively correct, and arguably clearer and more common. That said, the use of the term dominion to describe a political entity was a new Canadian coinage and is historically significant - so perhaps it is not out of place in the lead as a distinguishing feature of the new country.

I'll also restate my desire to include the Statute of Westminster as an intermediate step on the road to independence between 1867 and 1982. In terms of real national independence, 1931 was far more significant than 1982. - Eron ^Talk 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been misled that it is a coinage of Canada. Please read the article Dominion. It's references clearly state that the colonies of Virginia and New England were both given the "title" of Dominion way before Canada, and neither was remotely self-governing. The term applied to Canada, but it meant nothing. The three colonies were already self-governing, and not referred to as Dominions. Australia was refered to as a Commonwealth when it was federated, and had no less or more independence than Canada. There is no reference that the title Dominion conferred a new status on Canada until 1907, when a Dominion was for the first time defined as a self-governing colony. Even at this time, the British purposely did not include that definition in any constituional document. Click here for a complete referenced discussion of the term as it pertains to Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 'filibusters' website is some person's concoction and, thus, without authority. Conversely, in addition to other sources provided, I'll direct you to How Canadians Govern Themselves by Eugene Forsey, a common primer/publication produced by the federal government (and posthumously credited), pages 8-9... Quizimodo 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Despite the fact that Canada is still "One Dominion" -- that section of the Constitution Act 1867 has not been superseded or annulled -- and my personal fondness for the term, the meaning of "dominion" has never been clearly defined; and it has shifted with time and is subject to a lot of personal interpretation. The lead of such a large and important article has to be as clear and brief as we can make it. Adding "dominion" to the lead takes away from clarity, because of all the conflicting interpretations people have of the word. It is however entirely appropriate to include a brief discussion of "dominion" in the History section, with a "see Canada's name", the right place for a full exposition. Indefatigable 13:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Canada becoming a 'federal dominion' or 'federation with dominion status' in 1867, appropriately linked, is crystal clear and succinct. (Note that the proposal is to clarify the ambiguous prior sentence in the 2nd paragraph regarding what arose from Confederation, not the upfront notation of 'country'.) And while personal interpretations are abound, particularly in this discussion, Wikipedia isn't the place for that -- that's why we prevail upon reputable citations which, in support of the above, are in abundance. Quizimodo 13:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quizimodo states that 'dominion' status is crystal clear; the dominion article leads with the sentence that a dominion 'was a self-governing colony or autonomous state.' Well, which was it? Dominion status seems to be the very paragon of ambiguity, rather than clarity, which is precisely the problem.--Gregalton 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No: the problem is the editor who added that tidbit to the 'dominion' article and has catalysed the current rigmarole amidst confusion and conflation. Perhaps you should direct your queries appropriately. The lead of that article, as with others like this one, can stand for improvement ... but that is no reason to block usage of the term in this context. Quizimodo 20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a Dominion under the Crown. Its title as 'Dominion' was never repealed. It is a legal description of the Canada. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No we should use the name used by the government of Canada, which has been, since Louis St-Laurent, simply 'Canada'. This is reflected by a number of changes over the years, such as the renaming of Dominion Day to Canada Day, culminating in the Canada Act of 1984, which repatriated the Canadian constitution, severing the last Canada's last tie to the British government. The only name mentioned in this document is 'Canada', with no mention of dominion. The word dominion does not appear on official documents from the government, on the currency or in legislation. I don't understand why there is any debate, or room for debate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desthc (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No The term is no longer in use...--Padraic 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: when does this irrelevant poll close? It's been nearly a month now, and the comments left by most voters indicate that the actual issues under consideration were not taken into account. --G2bambino 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Lede or Lead?~~
~~Several people have been referring to "the lede." It seems to me that they must mean "the lead". Sunray 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
The same thought crossed my mind: 'lede' -- which doesn't have an entry in at least one common dictionary -- seems to be a neologism. Quizimodo 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term lede is explained here. The terms are essentially interchangeable. - Eron ^Talk 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, OK. Are you leading me on? Assuming we are not as dense as lead, who will take the lead in editing the lead? ;) Quizimodo 00:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wundered about this as well, lede/lead. Thought it was some latin term. GoodDay 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Poll: July 1, 1867 in the lead~~

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

Vote Closed!

Opened per discussion above on 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC) by G2bambino
As tha above poll regarding the use of the word "Dominion" was based on a misunderstanding of the issue at hand, I'm opening this one to deal with what is actually the focus of our attention. Namely:
Should it be said in the 2nd paragraph of the lead that Canada became: 1) a "federal Dominion" or 2) a "federal country" on July 1, 1867?
For background info, read:

Dominion#Historical development

Canada#Confederation

Canadian Confederation

Post-Confederation Canada (1867-1914)#Confederation

Canada's name#Adoption of Dominion

Dominion Day

Please say if you support option one or option two

Comment - federation is not included as rational choice; federal country is deliberately awkward.

Additional references:

* Dominion

* "DOMINION OF CANADA" FAQ--Soulscanner 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC) — Note: this website is someone's personal concoction. 10:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1 - all the documentation shows that upon Confederation Canada became a Dominion. There is no valid reason to subvert this fact as long as there's no implication that the country remains a Dominion. --G2bambino 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1 - Canada was indeed a Dominion, why hide undisputable facts? GoodDay 21:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Must we stick "federal" in there? I think it's clumsy. I've made a proposal above which I think states things fairly clearly. I believe the most significant change on July 1, 1867, was the achievement of self-government, but not complete independence. The fact that the new country was structured federally isn't as important. - Eron ^Talk 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would actually disagree with the assertion that Canada becoming a a federation (a federal state) in 1867 -- or a body of entities ascribing to federalism -- isn't as important to note. In fact, it may be the most important aspect: Confederation united a number of former British provinces into a single political entity with a federal system of government, and federalism remains a major aspect of contemporary Canadian politics. Besides: a number of developments after 1867 may have been more instrumental in the country's self-governance than the BNA Act 1867 (namely, the Statute of Westminster 1931). Quizimodo 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a question of interpretation on which people of good will can disagee. Canada wasn't the first group of former British provinces to unite federally - the U.S. had done that ninety years before. But Canada was the first group of colonies to be granted a negotiated and peaceful form of self-governing independence, and this status was indicated by the term dominion. (And I am in agreement on the significance of other post-1867 events, particularly 1931.)
I do not feel strongly either way on the inclusion of "federal" or "federated," though I do see Quizimodo's logic re. it being one of the most important aspects of July 1, 1867; in fact, if I think about it a little more, it seems obvious that the Dominion status would never have come about without confederation. --G2bambino 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) Yes, E, we can amicably disagree over that point. Federalism (as that article indicates), along with responsible government and the Charter, are three pillars of the Canadian constitutional order -- that article's introductory paragraph may also reinforce your ponderings, G. Quizimodo 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per the poll just above. I don't believe it is necessary to be in the lead. -- Jeff3000 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1 - 'Dominion' was conferred as Canada's title upon Confederation (or, specifically, when it become a federation) in 1867; no statutes have amended this. As I've indicated before, 'federal country' is rather kitschy. Quizimodo 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither - Both options are unnecessarily clumsy. I like Soulscanner's wording that it formed a federation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They (at least, 'federal dominion') are not as 'clumsy' as the prior incorrect lead. In comparison, I hardly see how the two words can be anything but clumsy; also compare with 'federal parliamentary democracy', 'constitutional monarchy' et al. And, if the above has revealed anything, it is that they are necessary. Also note that 'federation' is noted upfront in the third paragraph ("A federation now comprising ten provinces and three territories...") and, thus, the S's proposal would be somewhat repetitive. As an alternate to 'federal dominion', we can do as the Canadian Oxford Dictionary does: "... [became] a federation with dominion status", but (#1) is more economic and says the same thing. Quizimodo 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A federation" seems a bit vague, n'est pas? --G2bambino 18:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Federation is pretty clear and well-understood. The lead section should be kept as brief and simple as possible yet be a overview capable being understood on its own. The details should be kept in other sections or articles. Introducing dominion status seems too complicated to be in the lead. Saying "federal country" is completely unnecessary and almost absurd wording. Soulscanner's wording, In 1867, Canada was founded when Confederation united three British North American colonies to form a federation., is pretty good, though I might omit mention of the somewhat misleading "Confederation" term. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Federation is clear when talking specifically about federation; but simply "a federation" isn't clear in the context of what Canada became in 1867. What kind of federation did the colonies unite into? "A federal Dominion" doesn't dispose of the important act of federation, but the inclusion of "Dominion" makes clear that the country was not a fully independent state at that time; together the two words state with crystal clarity exactly what Canada became on that date. --G2bambino 21:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well, the proposed wording is as inaccurate as the preceding text, quite simply because Canada wasn't 'founded' in 1867: the federal dominion (Dominion of Canada) was, but it existed also as the Province of Canada before Confederation -- see above Canadian Encyclopedia ref. Quizimodo 21:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Today's Canada was founded in 1867 with the beginning of the federation of British North America. The new Dominion shared the name with the old Province of Canada, which can be confusing, but they are different entities. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to that, but you're still incorrect. The federal Dominion of Canada -- what you call 'today's Canada' -- was founded in 1867 from the preceding Province of Canada (comprised of Lower Canada (Canada East) and Upper Canada (Canada West): this is clearly spelled out in the Canadian Encyclopedia reference above, for instance. Otherwise, we wouldn't have an article for disambiguated 'Canadas'. This (perplexing) deprecation of the title and insistence on unclear language in lieu only serves to confuse the issue further and will hamper visitors with imprecision. Quizimodo 21:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow you. The old colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick ceased to exist after 1867. They were replaced with a new country. The dab page is there precisely because several things have been called Canada. There is also a Notre Dame High School dab page. What's your take on why we have that? DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow you, but you may have just made the point: the wording proposed by S. is unclear and ignorant of the historical (preceding) entity named Canada which in 1867 united with other British colonies to become the federal dominion known as Canada. It also expects the reader to not know the difference or anything about the prior state of affiars, and unnecessarily deprecates a term which may clarify matters. The Notre Dame example is a complete non sequitur. Quizimodo 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you are trying to say that the Canada of today is simply a continuance of the United Province of Canada with other provinces being added to it. I disagree strongly. The BNA Act of 1867 was intended to form a new country of all the colonies in the area. You stated that the existence of a Canada dab page proved your point somehow and I still don't see how.DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, but there may be validity to that. Anyhow, G. summarised it above succinctly: the inclusion of these two words simply and clearly highlights the change in governance/structure brought by Confederation in 1867, something which noting 'federation' alone doesn't quite address. And the existence of a Canada DAB page, with a number of preceding entities so named, demonstrates that references just to 'Canada' simply won't suffice in this historical context. Quizimodo 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Etymology, which represents a long-standing consensus, clearly distinguishes between the Province of Canada and Canada. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick did not join this province. Rather the three were united to for a new federation. --Soulscanner 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat: they were united to become a new federal dominion, or "federation of provinces with dominion status". The etymology section summarises (incompletely, as it now is) the subarticle entitled 'Canada's name', where the authority and legitimacy of this fact regarding the title is corroborated through numerous reliable sources (from the federal government and elsewhere); this page also notes other references (e.g., Canadian Encyclopedia, Oxford). At this point, opponents must provide the burden of evidence in support of this position, which hasn't yet been done. Quizimodo 10:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1. If anything sounds clumsy to me, it would be #2. -- Reaper X 18:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither - Question moot - Eight peopole have already said that Canada should not be referred to as a dominion in the lead. Question is purposely obtuse. --Soulscanner 03:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: your original poll may be moot No: the initial poll is obtuse. It is entitled much as this one is, but then you confusingly proceed to invoke the prior poll about the name to substantiate it. Different issues. This poll -- about what resulted from Confederation (regarding a fact supported by reputable citations) and what should be in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction -- has proceeded to clarify the topic. You continue to confuse the two -- and, as it currently stands, there is rough parity regarding the proposed notions. Quizimodo 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither - dominion should be left out, as previously disputed seemingly without end. Federal country is ugly; since already established that Canada is a country (first sentence), federation is specific enough. I also object to the sentence following unless there is some specific reason: "gradual process .... moved Canada towards statehood." This seems to constitute a claim that Canada was not a state (subject of international law), and an unsourced one at that.--Gregalton 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To clarify: I am advocating for the following 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph (or similar): "In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federal dominion." Unlike, the prior version, this would clearly indicate the change in governance/structure brought about by Confederation; otherwise, see Dominion#Canada et al. The first sentence of the article would remain unchanged. Quizimodo 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1 one une Dominion is its title, federal it is. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close of vote
Result: No Consensus. --G2bambino 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Use of word 'dominion' in lead compromises neutrality of article~~
I now accept that using "Canada" in lieu of "Dominion of Canada" does not extend to referring to the country as a dominion as I originally thought. I do not accept it as consensus as many here may disagree. Even though a majority here wish to see the term omitted, a more extensive arguement is required to build a consensus and justify it. I was hoping to avoid getting into a long-winded debate on the issue and settling it quickly so as not to jeopardize the FA-rating of the article, and I apologize for having to write such a long edit, but it seems necessary.
The word dominion seriously compromises the neutrality of the article. Most of the reasons for excluding it [ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/dominion.htm can be found by clicking here]. I'll summarize this link, and offer more references.
1. The word is contentious among editors - The word has been subject to longstanding debates among editors to the point that by consensus both it's usage and its discussion (in certain contexts) has been referred to other pages (see preamble to article and [Talk:Canada%27s_name Discussion of Canada's official name]. It is also a reasonable proposition that many wanted the name dropped precisely because they disagree that Canada should be referred to dominion, as they no longer thought of it as such. A strong majority of editors polled above have also agreed that the term is contentious for various reasons. Although this doesn't show that there is a consensus that "dominion" should not be used in the lead, these facts needs to be taken into consideration when building consensus.

2. The term is archaic - Britain officially stopped using the word "Dominion" in 1948 and has used "Commonwealth Realm" since. The Canadian government deliberately gradually stopped using it because it had colonial overtones, implying submission to the British Monnarch. Modern texts and scholars no longer use it to describe Canada. Young Canadians don't even know the word exists. The word is so rarely used that editors on this page are not sure what it means.

3. The term is ambiguous and disputed among scholarly sources - Those claiming that dominion was coined especially for Canada are wrong. The word has and is regularly used to mean a generic territorial possession of a monarch, interchangeable with kingdom. Various legal and academic sources between the 1653-1911 prove this, and show that this generic sense of the word continued way beyond confederation:
a) Instrument of Government, 1653[7]
“The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging.

I. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people assembled in Parliament; the style of which person shall be the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

II. That the exercise of the chief magistracy and the administration of the government over the said countries and dominions, and the people thereof, shall be in the Lord Protector ... "

b) Treaty of Utrecht 1713[8] refers to dominions as generic territories 24 times, for example:
"Moreover, the most Christian King promises, as well in his own name, as in that of his heirs and successors, that they will at not time whatever disturb or give any molestation to the Queen of Great Britain, her heirs and successors, descended from the aforesaid Protestant line, who possess the crown of Great Britain, and the dominions belonging therunto."

c) The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) [9] refers to all African possessions (which were not self governing) as dominions. A few examples:
i) "... on the 23rd of April 1895 Tongaland was declared by proclamation to be added to the dominions of Queen Victoria ... "

ii) "... Lord Salisbury obtained from Germany the recognition of a British protectorate over the dominions of the sultan of Zanzibar, including the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba"

iii) "... British officials exercised considerable power at the court of Zanzibar, which indeed owed its separate existence to a decision of Lord Canning, the governor-general of India, in 1861 recognizing the division of the Arabian and African dominions of the imam of Muscat."

Given that these are authoratitive sources, counter examples will only prove that the term is academically and legally ambiguous and contentious.
4. The term pushes a marginal monarchist POV - The term was traditionally used and defended by monarchists (Tories or Conservatives) who wished that Canada would keep strong ties to Britain, and opposed by those wishing that Canada loosen or cut these ties (Liberals and CCF). Monarchism is now a spent political force, and marginal even within the Conservative party. Including their preferred terms overweights a marginal POV.

5. The term adds nothing to the article - As it is imprecise and contentious, keeping the term adds nothing to the quality or clarity article. There is nothing that can be conveyed by the term that cannot be conveyed by "colony" or "self-governing colony". Either way, British North American possessions were all colonies and all self-governing (see Responsisble Government), so Confederation did not change anything to drastically in this regard. The term confuses even Canadians; imagine what it does to those who know nothing about Canada.

6. "Kingdom" was the first choice of the Fathers of Confederation - As stated in the Etymology, Canadians thought of Canada as a Kingdom, so that "dominion" can be used interchangeably with this term. The King we're talking about is the British Monarch, and the dominion we're talking about is clearly his. There's no evidence that Canadians thought they were getting more indepenednce with this designation. They did think they were extending the Sovereignty of the King (i.e. his dominion) over a larger area.

7. Canada asserted it's independence by what it did in the early 1900's, not by calling itself a dominion - It was Laurier after 1896 that really asserted Canada's independence in foreign affairs. Other colonies wanted the same degree of autonomy, and hence wanted to be called a Dominion. It is Canada's actions that conferred any "status" upon the word, not the "title" itself.

No legal document says that Dominion conferred any extra independence before 1931 - The British purposely never recognized that Dominion conferred any autonomous legal status until the Statute of Westminster clarified this. That is why most historians consider 1931 as the year Canada gained its independence.

8. The main point of Confederation was the formation of a federation - It's Confederation, not Dominionization. The word Confederation predated any mention of Dominion in the 1860's. Moreover, the word and status of "Dominion" has not survived history as a meaningful way of describing Canada. The division of power between federal and provincial governments has and continues to be very important. The federalism is hence more important than whatever and unspecified and equivocal powers the already self-governing colonies of British North America were given in 1867.
To conclude, dominion is a contentious, archaic, and ambiguous term when referring to Canada in the lead and adds nothing to the clarity and quality of the article. It overweights a marginal monarchist POV. Eight people here (so far) agree that it is contentious and should be removed. Given its prominence in the lead, there is good grounds to say that it makes the neutrality of the article disputed. An editor could reasonably tag this article as such. That would be a shame because many here (including myself) have put considerable effort into adding to the body of the article and condensing it without any contentious editing. It would be a shame to have all this work undone by a small group of editors who have added nothing but edits to the lead and reams of text on the talk page. As such, I have changed the word federal dominion to federation. If it is changed back, I will consider asking an administrator if this longstanding debate puts this article's neutrality in jeopardy. Intellectual honesty demands it. I also suggest considering moving any further discussion of this subject to the dominion article, as was done with the debate concerning Canada's name. --Soulscanner 08:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your points. I would like to add that logic does not demand that one agree with all of Soulscanner's points to agree that Dominion should not figure in the lead - it's too complex and nuanced an issue for that space. For the same reason, I believe the sentence that begins "gradual process of independence" is slanted. The current version implies that independence was only finally achieved in 1982.--Gregalton 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for your point of view. Logic may not demand complete concurrence (and I may agree with some of the points), but I see few sources to support some of those points, either. It is odd that crutches of the offender's argument -- opinion -- are a misread (or misunderstood) citation from the Canadian Encyclopedia (highlighted by Eron) and the above noted 'filibusters' subpage of a blog which has no authority whatsoever. All the while, not one but several reliable sources (e.g., by the federal government) have been provided to support both the currency of the term and its appropriateness in this context, and many deprecate or ignore them. There is something very wrong with this -- more later.

Regarding the nuanced nature of 'dominion', that is why it and terms both complex and not are pipe linked -- that is part of their purpose (to "provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic") 'Federation' is also a nuanced term, just as 'Confederation' is in the Canadian context (as opposed to the usual reckoning).

As for the nonconsensual change to 'federation': sorry, these discussions aren't over. And, frankly, I would welcome an administrator to intervene or arbitrate. Quizimodo 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting observation. A number of people have argued against the use of the word "domininon" in the lead because the term is somehow too complex, and thus confusing. However, at the same time, nobody claims "federation," "confederation," or even "country" are contentious because of potential to be confusing to uninitated readers. It seems what's perplexing to some here is deemed by them to be perplexing to everyone, when that may not be the case, or even of much importance. --G2bambino 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note it's not just too 'nuanced' a term (perhaps that was too indirect) - the two meanings of dominion as piped are contradictory: it's either a country or a colony. Well, which is it? This 'ambiguity' (contradiction) is simply inappropriate in the lead.--Gregalton 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, G2: add to that 'nation' (Quebecois?), state, and (perhaps here more so than usual) 'province'

Gr, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia:
Dominion refers primarily to Dominion of Canada (Constitution Act, 1867, preamble and s3). The Fathers of Confederation wanted to call "the new nation" the Kingdom of Canada. The British Government feared this would offend the Americans, whom, after the stresses of the American Civil War, it was most anxious not to antagonize. It insisted on a different title. Sir Leonard Tilley suggested "dominion": "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth" (Psalm 72:8). The Fathers said it was intended to give dignity to the federation, and as a tribute to the monarchical principle. The word came to be applied to the federal government and Parliament, and under the Constitution Act, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title.

and, according to the Oxford Canadian Dictionary, (2004, p. 443; emphasis added)
do•min•ion noun 1 sovereign authority; control. 2 the territory of a sovereign or government; a domain. 3 the title of each of the self-governing territories of the Commonwealth. 4 a (the Dominion) hist. informal Canada. b Cdn. (Nfld.) hist. Newfoundland as a self-governing part of the Commonwealth prior to its entry into Canadian Confederation in 1949. [Old French from medieval Latin dominio -onis from Latin dominium from dominus lord]

And that's Commonwealth of Nations.

That settles that. So, where's the contradiction? It's all a matter of context. In 1867, Canada became a federal dominion; the title was later applied to refer to self-governing entities within the British Empire and then the Commonwealth. If anything, the 'Dominion' article introduction (as I've maintained) must be corrected. The term may be nuanced, but inadequacies of the 'Dominion' article or in editorial comprehension regarding the term are allayed through proper sourcing, and should not be used as justification to perpetuate inadequacies in this one. Quizimodo 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine that it settles it for you, but the majority of editors here believe, including myself, that for most readers, it is a confusing term that should be left out of the lead, and be better explained in the main text. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
t doesn't settle it for me per se, but extrapolations about meanings beyond source matter don't belong. I cannot speak for your confusion, not to mention subjective judgement, but this is not a majoritarian exercise. And, as demonstrated above, a clutch of terms are equally ... confusing. If you wish to open further the can of worms, don't be surprised if a mess results. Quizimodo 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of Wikipedia is gaining consensus, and the use of the term dominion does not have any consensus in the lead. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no consensus to remove it, either. And, since the burden of evidence has been satisfied regarding this point, it is up to naysayers to respond in kind. I see a sh*tload of commentary, but few if any relevant citations to support opposition -- please provide. Quizimodo 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is not a majoritarian exercise, the edits of two contentious and determined editors does not constitute a consensus either. A majority is especially important to consider especially when it comes to considering current usage of language, especially when supported by facts.

So lets separate fact and opinion here:

* It is a fact that the term is contentious. That is why separate articles have been created to discuss it, and eight editors polled here oppose using the term. You do not need a scholarly reference to see that, although several references have been given that back up their judgement on the issue.
The term is artificially contentious: point me to one salient reference which says so. If you (and other editors) cannot or will not reconcile the available information and apply it as needed, that is not my -- our -- problem. This is an encyclopedia, which by design is a comprehensive compendium of information, explaining why multiple articles exist regarding topic matter. Quizimodo 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* It is a fact that the word is ambiguous; the Encyclopedia Britannica entry above clearly contradicts the dictionary entries given. In particular, it is a fact that at the time of Confederation (and centuries before and for decades afterward), the word dominion was used generically to refer to any colonial possession of Britain and other monarchies. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that in 1867 that the title dominion was adopted to confer any extra autonomy to Canada. The evidence given in the etymology and the Canada's name page indicates the exact opposite.

* It is a fact that the term is archaic in many important contexts. It appears on no legal documents written since the 1950's. It is no longer used by most Canadians and international bodies to refer to Canada. Within the Commonwealth, Dominions have been explicitly referred to as Commonwealth Realms since 1948. This was well established in the long discussion over Canada's name.
Agreed: the term is archaic/historical in many important contexts, but this is not one of them. Quizimodo 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* It is a fact that term is used mostly by monarchists when used to describe Canada. It is also a fact that monarchists are now marginal in Canada. If someone wishes to challenge this assertion, I will provide references. It is my opinion that these facts support the assertion that including "dominion" gives the article a monarchist POV.
Please provide these references. Currently, I can't comment on the prevalence of monarchists any more than I can on the prevalence of republicans. The 'filibusters' blog website is not, in any sense of the word, reliable, though there are some notions which seem/are agreeable. As stated far above, including 'Dominion of Canada' in the lead would be a monarchist POV (which I would not support), omitting it completely (which numerous editors are insistent on) is a republican POV, which is somewhat misplaced given that the current state remains a constitutional monarchy with Betty its de jure head of state. (For those who invoke currency as a standard for whatever, she appears in effigy on coinage and the $20 bill, no?) Thus, merely iterating what the constitution indicates regarding the polity that materialised in 1867 is simply an equitable and verifiable 'POV'. Other assertions are opinions just the same. Quizimodo 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* It is my opinion, given the above facts, that including dominion in the lead compromises the neutrality of the article.

* It is my opinion that using the word dominion is not necessary. The entire article below is written without using the word dominion, except to explain it's archaic usage. I think that makes sense since it will appear on old historic texts, while explaining why it's usage is now very rare.

* In my opinion, it would have been better to discuss the inclusion of the word dominion in the lead because it is so contentious. There is a clearly stated preamble to the article that explicitly limits the use of the word. That represent a strong consensus on the contentiousness of the word. The process for changing the consensus is documented, and it has not been followed here when the word was introduced without any discussion whatsoever. Hence, the burden of evidence is clearly on editors who wish to introduce the term. I do not submit this as a fact, but as an interpretation of the preamble that establishes my good faith in the edits. I will continue to edit this page based on this interpretation.
~~--Soulscanner 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I am - and have been - on the fence on this. I can see both sides of the argument. The term dominion is not meaningless with respect to Canada. Whatever its other uses, it was, for much of Canada's first century, a recognized term and title for the country. I do not agree that it is POV to acknowledge this, to use the term appropriately in its historical context. I could argue to the contrary, that efforts to eliminate references to the historical use of the term dominion are POV - a sort of retroactive republicanism.

That said, I also recognize that the lead needs to be clear and simple, and if using dominion in the lead does not add clarity or simplicity then it should be avoided. (I'm not entirely convinced that it doesn't, but we should perhaps err on the side of caution with that.)

As to the "gradual process of independence", this is why I have proposed adding a reference to the 1931 Statute of Westminster. Regardless of what we call it, Canada in 1867 was not fully independent of Britain. The bulk of the work to move towards independence, through the establishment of an independent foreign policy and a fully independent judiciary, was achieved by 1931. The last outstanding detail - achieving the power to independently amend the Constitution - was taken care of in 1982. It should be possible to describe that fairly succinctly. - Eron ^Talk 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat a point made above: the dominion article leads by saying dominion was used for an entity that "was a self-governing colony or autonomous state". This is not clarity. And I see your point on independence, but saying 'was not fully independent' is an accurate reflection of ambiguity; 'a gradual process of independence ... culminated in 1982' implies (to me) that independence was achieved in 1982. I would argue that independence existed in 1867 (e.g. power to self-govern and sign treaties), with vestiges of dependence remaining - you say tomato, etc. Regardless, it is a fine point and all I am arguing is that a) simplicity and clarity in the lead is the priority; and b) given the ambiguities, the nuances should be left for the body further down. The phrase about independence and Canada's tortured constitutional history can just be left out.

How 'bout "In 1867, Confederation united Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a federation, with each becoming a province. Subsequent practical and legal changes gradually eliminated the vestiges of dependence on the UK government and parliament."? Just an attempt...--Gregalton 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is something that could work; my own attempt is below. - Eron ^Talk 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proposal for the lead~~
We now have several concurrent polls, discussions, and whatnot surrounding one sentence in the lead. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I also think that absent a strong consensus in favour of using dominion in the lead, we need to leave it out of there. Given the controversy over the term, it should be used only where the appropriate context can be provided. That said, I'm not wild about some of the other options. So I took a stab at revising the whole second paragraph:
The territory of Canada has been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, the British and French explored and later settled the Atlantic coast, moving inland to the Great Lakes. France ceded most of its North American colonies to Great Britain in 1763, after the Seven Years War. In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada. As other colonies joined the new country, Canada moved to full independence through the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The Canada Act 1982 ended the last dependence on the British parliament.
This draft will probaby satisfy no one completely, as I've managed to avoid using both dominion and federation. That was sort of the point. It's a compromise that states the one thing that - I think - we can all agree on: on July 1, 1867, a country named Canada was formed. - Eron ^Talk 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very fine effort in the best spirit of compromise. My only nit-picking request would be to remove (somehow) the phrase "full independence" (or independence at all), likely by combining the last two sentences. Personally, although I think Westminster massively important (more so than the Canada act), reference to it could be removed from the lead (and let the main text speak for itself). Or, rephrase the second sentence to "...Canada's government took on direct responsibility for conduct of foreign policy and other matters, notably in Statute of Westminster."--Gregalton 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument for removing Westminister from the lead, but if it goes then the Canada Act has to as well; as you note, the former was far more significant, at least in terms of the functions of an independent country, then the mostly symbolic Canada Act. I agree with your earlier point that having just the 1982 act in there makes it look like Canada wasn't really independent until that point, when - in all important respects - it had been since 1931. I'll think about it, and see what others have to say as well. - Eron ^Talk 15:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Westminster can be worked in without implying independence happened in 1982, I can live with it. I would prefer the question of independence be left out (too complex for lead). I would argue Canada has been independent since 1867 (subject of international law in all important respects, viz founding member of League of Nations, embassies, etc., not necessarily coincident with Westminster), but that many of these powers were not formalised (wouldn't even have known how to use them) and there was little foreign policy to speak of. In a bit of a simplistic comparison, I would argue that the fact that I know nothing about my car and let my mechanic make all decisions in practice does not mean I renounce the right to make those decisions, should I learn what a carburetor is or what to do with it.

This is all tied up with changing international practice (the counter-argument to my League of Nations point is that Belarus was a member of the UN, despite quite clearly lacking other features of independence), ambiguous status of British Empire at this point, new concepts of nationality and a war or two being fought on these lines in a few places (the word 'independence' would likely have been associated with 'secession' in the context of the US civil war), unclear views of Canadians themselves, etc. The issue of "independence" or Canada's status as a 'dominion' (and what exactly that implied, if anything) were fudged and avoided, to some degree intentionally, to some degree because the questions weren't meaningful in the same way. Soit. All the more reason to avoid for the opening making judgments that can be argued either way by reasonable people. Another example on the subject is that there was no Canadian citizenship under law until 1949 or so (many countries had not formalised the concept). There was case law, there was an understanding of what "Canadian" meant - the modern conception of citizenship simply does not correspond fully. Applying the modern concept is an anachronism.

But you had it right when you said "a country named Canada was formed."--Gregalton 19:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All good points, though key elements of international relations were beyond Canadian control in the years after Confederation. The history of the Department of Foreign Affairs notes that "The union of the four British North American colonies... created a country that could best be described as a semi-autonomous member of the British Empire. Canada's original constitution, the British North America Act, said nothing about the conduct of international relations except to affirm Canada's duty, "as Part of the British Empire," to fulfil the obligations incurred under treaties between the Empire and foreign countries. The conduct of diplomacy, it appeared, was to be the preserve of British statesmen." No Canadian diplomats existed until the first High Commissioner to Britain was appointed in 1880, followed by a representative in Paris in 1882. The department itself wasn't created until 1909. Most telling of all, when Britain declared war on Germany in 1914, there was no debate in Canada: we were in it, no declaration required. But I agree that these are subtleties, and independence is a fairly unsubtle word. "Autonomy" has been suggested; that might work:
As other colonies joined the new country, Canada moved to full autonomy through the 1931 Statute of Westminster, with the Canada Act 1982 ending the last vestige of dependence on the British parliament."

- Eron ^Talk 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the suggestions above are appropriate. I thank EronMain and Gregalton for their useful and constructive work. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commend attempts at reworking the paragraph, but aren't we going a bit overboard? I mean, only two words/one sentence is at issue. Perhaps something as follows (heavily borrowed from one of Eron's versions, with tweaks):
The lands have been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast. France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763 after the Seven Years War. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federal dominion. This began a gradual process towards autonomy from the United Kingdom, continuing with the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act 1982, which ended legal dependence on the British parliament.

or replace 'federal dominion' with 'federation with dominion status' or 'semi-autonomous federation OR territory (within the British Empire)'. Thoughts? Quizimodo 22:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts: your proposal still has dominion. In the lead. Which is what was being discussed/polled. (Granted, until I confused things by complaining about the sentence immediately after). So, no. Dominion does not garner the support to retain (only in the lead, mind), because in the opinion of many it is not sufficiently clear to non-specialists.

Honestly, I do not have religion on the dominion issue either way, but this long discussion demonstrates that the subject is controversial enough to not use the word in the lead - only for brevity and simplicity. Why is it so important to have it in the lead?

Most wikipedia readers - those non-Canadians, NOT raised in an atmosphere of quiet pride in bizarre trivia, kept warm through the long winter by the eternal flame of minor constitutional disputes, and instructed on the finer points of conversation-stopping by long diatribes about the dwindling usage of the Red Ensign - should not have to consult a dictionary or Canadian encyclopedia to read the first three paragraphs of the article and understand what Canada became in 1867 (if anything). Those daring enough to read on must fend for themselves and mind the undertow of the talk page.--Gregalton 04:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, yet, as has been rightly pointed out, "confederation," especially in the Canadian context, proves as equally confounding to those poor sods you describe. Still, you supported Eron's proposal above. Why do we have faith that readers will comprehend one nuanced word but not another? How do we decide what others, whom we don't even know, can and cannot do?

Canada became a number of things on July 1, 1867. One was a federation; that much is clear. The other was a Dominion. Yes, there were areas called the "Dominion of ..." before that date. But, none were ever what Canada turned into on that day 33 years before the turn of the 20th century, which was a unique entity that had never existed in the Empire before.

Confederation is a complex concept to grasp. Dominion status is a complex concept to grasp. However, I'm starting to see here that the dance around these terms is what's truly most perplexing. Need we really go to such acrobatics just to avoid saying what actually happened and actually was?

For instance, the article United Kingdom describes, in the second paragraph of the preamble, the UK as "comprising four constituent countries." Who uses "constituent country" in general parlance? But, that's what the UK is made up of, and nobody's trying to hide it over there.

Let's not let perceived ignorance or stupidity guide our actions here. --G2bambino 04:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to dispute the use of the word confederation here, go ahead; my comments apply to dominion, which is the point of the discussion. (I don't agree about the difficulty with the word confederation, nor that it has any potential POV implications, but that is a separate discussion). The point of the above is that lots of people who are neither stupid nor ignorant would have no idea what dominion means in the Canadian historico-constitutional context (and given the copious and vehement discussion here, presumably amongst people who care enough to get exercised about it, there should be no expectation that even a relatively well-informed individual would), and such an individual may misunderstand or misattribute meaning.

The comparison with constituent country is weak: country is self-evident, constituent is a straightforward word: "being a part, or component of a whole." Combining the two does not make the statement more complex. However, if you wish to dispute THAT point, it is a point for the UK article, not this one, and in no way settles the point. (Perhaps the terminology of the Britney Spears article is confusing, but that's not relevant either).

The lead should be short, simple and clear, and dominion - as noted and supported by this lengthy discussion - is not clear.--Gregalton 07:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there's an attempt to block the usage of a particular word here because it will supposedly cause readers issue due to their ignorance of the subject; thus, the choice of that which stays and that which goes is apparantly based on personal perceptions of what absolute strangers can and cannot understand. The example of "confederation" plays easily into this argument, and, in fact, greatly undermines it, because it is, also within the Canadian historico-constitutional context, a word with as much a specific and sublime meaning as that of "dominion." So, unless one can proove that Wikipedia readers can grasp the word "confederation" much more easily than "dominion," the reasoning for excluding "dominion" comes down to one possibility: it invokes emotional reaction in certain individuals. Are we really going to edit out a word for political correctness?

I'm not going to fight this tooth and nail, but, frankly, I'd say we either include "federal," "confederation" and "dominion," or we apply the "it's too confusing to readers" argument to all these words and keep them out. No double standards, thanks. --G2bambino 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not exaggerate this: Dominion of Canada figures two paragraphs later, after the lead. The discussion is about keeping it in the lead. It is not being "excluded" from the article or purged from history, but left to a section where it can be explained in context. Which occurs immediately after the table of contents, approximately ten lines later.--Gregalton 16:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I for one am not suggesting that we should not use dominion anywhere in the article. The difference between "dominion" and "federalism" or "Canadian confederation" (which is what confederation should link to in this context) is that dominion has two different meanings - the other two terms have one.

That said, in the spirit of compromise, how about:
The territory of Canada has been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, the British and French explored and later settled the Atlantic coast, moving inland to the Great Lakes. France ceded most of its North American colonies to Great Britain in 1763, after the Seven Years War. In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada. As other colonies joined the new country, Canada moved to full independence through the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The Canada Act 1982 ended the last dependence on the British parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EronMain (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it, though I still oppose the resoning behing excluding the word "dominion." Regardless, my one concern with the above proposal is the assertion that Canada was "formed" in 1867; that is not the case as Canada existed prior to that date. The best I can think of to adequately describe what occurred that year, without using the word "dominion," is: In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form a semi-autonomous federation named Canada. Though, this really just spells out in excessive detail what In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form a Dominion named Canada or In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form the Dominion of Canada could say far more succinctly. --G2bambino 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with G2 on all points regarding the 'resoning' [sic], or lack thereof, for exclusion. In support of inclusion, numerous reliable sources have been provided that indicate the validity of the notion; thus, the burden of evidence now falls on naysayers -- amid much argument, and despite a recent request, I have not seen one reliable source to support exclusion or which demonstrates that 'federal dominion' or similar is incorrect.

As has been pointed out, this debate concerns two words only. So, why are we mucking around with the rest of the rest of the paragraph? I'm all for enhancements, but this (and I mean this entire issue) is a hyper-reaction. That being said, G2's proposal harks of one I suggested above, referring to the sentence in question only:
"In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous territory (within the British Empire)."

I would sub in 'federation' for 'territory' (and relink appropriately) only if it is removed from the 3rd paragraph. The rest of the paragraph (save adding notions about Westminster) would essentially remain unchanged. What's more: this would not require a complete revamping of the 2nd paragraph, and should mollify editors who are resistant to major changes as they pertain to this article's vaulted featured status. Quizimodo 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not one of verifiablity, but of placement of the term and summary style, which is basically editorial style. So there is no burden of proof. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is about verifiability and the burden of proof: you and others have not satisfactorily demonstrated why this wording, properly placed and consistent with summary style, should not be included. You and others continue to push this point of view, arguably a 'republican' one and/or one based on insufficient or incorrect information, but haven't provided any reliable sources to support it. I ask again, can you list and provide reliable sources to justify this position? Quizimodo
Again, as mentioned by countless editors, which you refuse to accept, is that most people find that the term dominion is not understand by most, and the lead should be of clarity which the vast majority of people understand. You are not assuming good faith with your accusations of POV pushing, and are going against consensus. If you want to talk about reliable sources actually related to this discussion, you would need to find a source that discusses the amount of people who understand the word dominion. There is no discussion of removing the word dominion, as Gregaltron has noted, where the discussion of the term is just 10 lines below the lead. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a number of claims both inflated and inaccurate. Countless? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the later poll indicates rough parity regarding this notion and counters the (flawed) poll immediately prior. Your notions regarding clarity assume that the current edition is unclear: hardly. I do not need to dredge up a reference about the level of comprehension regarding the term -- I have provided dictionary and encyclopedic sources which do that. Must I add actually add one (or several) to the phrasing of note in the lead? If you or others misunderstand or continue to promote confusion regarding the term of contention despite this, that is not my -- our -- problem. And, despite a number of requests now, you and others have not done the same, and have merely been polemic. Relatedly, provide sources corroborating the level of understanding for 'country', 'state', 'province', 'federation', 'federal', 'confederation'. And, frankly, since there is no discussion of removing the word 'dominion' and you have otherwise not persuaded in support of this viewpoint, given the context, the wording (actually added at the beginning of Sep.) is staying put for now. Quizimodo 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several senses of the word "Canada". One of them, which is the actual topic of the article, is the country called Canada. When I write "in 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada," this is the sense I mean. This should be made clear by the next sentence, which begins "as other colonies joined the new country." There are other meanings, but when used in this article, they are generally qualified in some way as "the French colony of Canada," "upper Canada," "the Province of Canada," etc. Canada - on its own - is generally used in the article to refer either to the country that exists today, or to the land area that this country occupies (e.g. "the First Peoples inhabited parts of Canada since...") - Eron ^Talk 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several senses: in this context, though, 'federal dominion' clearly and simply qualifies what resulted from Confederation in 1867. And, frankly, it does not require a significant (and perhaps flawed but good natured) retrofitting of a 'featured' 2nd paragraph to communicate that. Quizimodo 00:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that "flawed" is a matter of perspective. I was working on one sentence; as I did so I noticed a couple of other things that I thought could be improved as well. "Featured" does not mean "immutable" and I believe my changes were both minor and positive. I'd be happy to explain them sentence by sentence:
"The lands have been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples." "The lands" is vague. Change to "the territory of Canada." Or I'd be happy with just "Canada" for that matter.

"The territory of Canada" is unnecessarily wordy: the first sentence in the previous paragraph already deals with the topic. Canada (province or federation) did not exist millennia ago, so it's imprecise to indicate that aboriginals inhabited it. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast." I simply added "moving inland to the Great Lakes", which I think was an indisputable part of the pre-Confederation colonization of Canada.

This is true: "and moved inland" would probably be sufficient, since there were movements on the western frontier too. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763 after the Seven Years War." Ceded to whom? I clarified that they were ceded to Great Britain.

This is fine, or indicate the UK to preclude duplication later in the paragraph. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federal dominion." Now we come to the heart of the matter - and of my compromise, which is to state the one clear and unequivocal fact: that a country was formed in 1867. Leave the details for just a bit further down the page.

Yes, this is the heart of the matter. Noting that it became a federal dominion upon Confederation in 1867 is also a clear, unequivocal, and verifiable fact (references from the federal government have also been provided): while the topic of the article is in fact stated in the 1st paragraph, here above all it is important to clarify what sort of country was brought about by Confederation with allusion to what preceded it -- these notions are inextricably linked. And the current wording is as summative as it gets, with details later on. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom moved Canada towards statehood and culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament." As I have stated above, this does sound like Canada was neither independent nor fully a state until 1867. True in some respects, but not others. I added information on the gradual growth of Canada through the accretion of other colonies, and I suggest the word "autonomy" over "independence" as a more accurate description of Canada's gradual adoption of its full authority as a nation. I also added a reference to the key piece of legislation in this process.

This sentence can stand for the most improvement: I support some of EronMain's current/prior notions including notions of autonomy, perhaps the Statute of Westminster, et al. Some could argue, however, that the country still has vestiges of dependence on the British parliament, as aboriginals maintain they can resort to the Privy Council since their treaties predate Confederation. Also let's remember that Mulroney sought the Queen's consent when he stacked the Senate in 1990 to pass the GST. Absolutely no talk of 'nation', though, given the many senses of that word and the Quebecois parliamentary motion of late. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing my best to break what seems to be a deadlock and achieve some sort of compromise, assuming that compromise is what we are trying to achieve here. - Eron ^Talk 02:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me: I acknowledge that, and am doing what I can to accommodate. However, it is ironic that such significant changes are being advocated by naysayers (not necessarily you) who, scant days ago, would use the article's featured status as a crutch to exclude this verifiable notion from the lead where it belongs. Quizimodo 20:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above lead sounds good to me. Thanks again for the proposal. Regards, -- Jeff3000 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds good to me too. It avoids contentious terminology. It's unfortunate that the word Confederation cannot be used, as it refers unambiguously to the unification of existing British North American dominions/colonies/posessions into a federation. However, it eliminates the contentious, ambiguous, archaic, vague, colonial and monarchist term "dominion". I can live with this. --Soulscanner 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not as of yet. 'Confederation', 'federal/federation', and 'dominion' are integral and inextricably linked notions regarding the founding of the 'country' in 1867 -- all are required in some form in the lead for clarity. I find it very odd that such substantial changes to the lead are being supported, given its stasis for months beforehand and the (IMO) inferior proposal now put forth. Frankly, regarding the continuous and pernicious hyper-reaction this has resulted in, I may have to request a review of this article's featured status and neutrality. Quizimodo 17:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and nominate the article for featured article review. I also recommend that you add some material to the etymology and history sections regarding the term dominion. I think that would better the article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may do all shortly (and also reply to Eron's points above), but please understand that -- from the onset, and as my comments far above (from early Sep.) demonstrate -- I primarily want to clarify the sentence that concerns the polity that arose in 1867. Quizimodo 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'd be happy to see Confederation added back in as follows:~~
~~"In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada.~~
~~I'd also request changing "independence" to "autonomy" as follows:~~
~~"As other colonies joined the new country, Canada moved to full autonomy through the 1931 Statute of Westminster."~~
I am genuinely trying to improve this article. I'd appreciate it if someone could explain how my minor tweaks to some of the other text in the second paragraph of the lead, which I have explained above, have resulted in an "inferior proposal." Seriously, I can't see it; I'd like some specific feedback. - Eron ^Talk 17:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as fine. I would like to see the changes go ahead. I still see no answer to the simple point that dominion clearly has two meanings, which in the lead is confusing and unnecessary; and since the use of the word in the Canadian context is explained in detail two paragraphs further down, there is no compelling reason to use it here.--Gregalton 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back for a bit. Not so fast. What precisely are these two meanings? Please cite. Just as with Canada being a federation, country, parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, et al., apparent confusion/clarification should be allayed with links to the relevant articles (the imperfections of which this article also shares, but we're working on that). Many of the culprit words do have multiple senses, both currently and previously, but the Canadian Oxford Dictionary and other sources clearly indicate what the meaning of 'dominion' is in this particular context -- you and others haven't provided anything to counter that (at least clearly). That being said, 'country' (though rather obvious), 'confederation', 'federal', and 'Canada' also have a number of senses. As well, the choice to mention 'Confederation' while not elaborating what sort of country it produced doesn't hold water.

And, with all due respect, EM's proposal (at least the sentence of contention) reverts to the inexact featured version of yesteryear. The BNA colonies -- one of which was the British province known as Canada -- were united upon Confederation to form the federal dominion of Canada. It is stated upfront what the topic of the article is; however, the change in its status/structure to an entity with same name must be clearly and succinctly laid out in that sentence if nowhere else. This is better fulfilled with the current wording, without having to jump through non-existent or artificial hoops to explain it. I'm all for enhancements, but this isn't necessarily the way to go. Quizimodo 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canada is a Dominion (see Clause 3). The long-form name of the Dominion of Canada is unfortunately disputed here by many Wikipedians.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quizimodo, to answer your questions: These two meanings, specifically referred to, and linked to, are in the dominion article: "A dominion ... was a self-governing colony or autonomous state." So, was it a colony or an autonomous state? There are no particular hoops that need to be jumped through to eliminate its use in the lead, whereas the hoops to use it are well jumped-through: in the article, two paragraphs later. And again, if you wish to dispute other terms, please raise those as separate issues. Dealing with this one word seems difficult enough.--Gregalton 07:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an answer. I cannot speak for what other editors decide to add or morph elsewhere, particularly the one who is responsible for the 'definition' on the 'dominion' page and morass on this one, but the meaning of 'dominion' has already been cited on this talk page from a number of sources. I have stated before the need to better that article's lead and correctly attribute the assertions made. In any event -- as evidenced by the multiple polls and excessive discussions as of late here, we are already jumping through hoops to suppress a legitimate term from the lead. This entire exercise has been a hyper-reaction to a simple and factual assertion.

(If I had to answer, I would probably say neither as worded: it was a semi-autonomous territory of the British Empire, and is a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth other than the UK that acknowledges the British monarch as head of state)

I see little talk of mollifying neophytes by deferring or suppressing terms like 'Confederation', even though a number of sources identify Canada as a confederal state.[10] [11][12]

In fact, it still has not been demonstrated to satisfaction why 'federal dominion' should be excluded as is from the 2nd paragraph. Despite a number of requests now, amidst verbosity, no one has yet provided reliable, verifiable sources to support exclusion ... and, no, the 'filibusters' blog won't do. That's a huge issue -- until they are provided for our collective scrutiny, there really is little more to discuss. Quizimodo 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Quizimodo. I thank you very much for your efforts to include the term Federal Dominion in the second paragraph. I personally support the idea. However, the majority of Wikipedians are "ill-informed" on this issue, and unfortunately Wikipedia is run by the majority vote of the "ignorant-mob".
Best wishes eh, ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Ill-informed?Ignorant mob?' Nice. All hail your enlightening influence. Leaving that aside, I applaud the originality of 'Federal Dominion', but is it realy necessary to create a new term? It is not a matter of proving that it should be excluded, but that proving that it should be included. And that goes for 'Confederation' too, or whatever term: kingdom, empire, viceroyalty, grand poobarate, whatever. How does the state refer to itself? Going back into the mists of time to ponder acts of Parliament and pronouncements of the English government doesn't help, because we can argue for ages on legalty niceties and historical nuances. How does the state here and now refer to itsself. If it uses 'dominion', that needs to be cited. If it uses 'confederation', that needs to be cited. If it uses 'federal dominion', it needs to be cited. Let's not get bogged down in the mire of history- let's stick to the here and now.--Gazzster 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gazzster. Ill-informed? Yes, they are. Canada is a Dominion (see Clause 3 of the BNA Act 1867). The long-form name of the Dominion of Canada is unfortunately disputed here by many Wikipedians.
~~Additionally, the term Federal Dominion is NOT a recently invented piece of "political double-speak". It is a real term.~~
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Unitary Kingdom (since 1927)
Dominion of Canada is a Federal Dominion (since 1867)
Commonwealth of Australia is a Federal Dominion (since 1901)
Dominion of New Zealand is a Unitary Dominion (since 1907)
Dominion of Newfoundland was a Unitary Dominion (1907-1949)
Union of South Africa was a Unitary Dominion (1910-1961)
Dominion of India was a Federal Dominion (1947-1950)
Dominion of Pakistan was a Federal Dominion (1947-1956)
~~Similarly,~~
United States of America is a Federal Republic (since 1776)
Republic of Texas was a Unitary Republic (1836-1845)
Confederate States of America claimed to be a Confederal Republic (1861-1865)
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

I stand by what I have stated. 'Dominion', in the context of a former dependency of Great Britain, is a historical term (in a broader context, it obviously has a broader meaning). The titles you have stated (without references) are no longer used. Certainly not in the case of Australia (I am an Australian) where 'Dominion of Australia' has never been used. The Constitution of Australia does not refer to a 'Federal Dominion' but to a 'Federal Commonwealth', so I do not know where you got that term from. And it should be noted that 'Federal Commonwealth' does not form part of Australia's title. The full title of my nation is 'Commonwealth of Australia' and always has been. The correct term, if you need to use one, is 'Commonwealth realm'. This term is not however analagous to 'dominion', for CR denotes a fully independent nation, as opposed to an autonomous dominion. However Australia never refers to itself as a Commonwealth realm, only as the 'Commonwealth of Australia'. The last time the British government used the term dominion to refer to one of the now Commonwealth realms was in 1948. I challenge you to demonstrate where the Commonwealth realms continue to use the term dominion to describe themselves. As to the title of Canada in specie I cannot say: I am not an expert about Canadian matters. Perhaps they do continue to use dominion, in which case, it would be in a very specific context. May I point out that you seem to have ignored one of my most pertinent points: dominion is a nebulous term is a particular historical context. The context was the British Empire. The BE no longer exists. Therefore, 'dominion' is no longer a valid term. I repeat what I have observed before: some editors in Wikipedia (I am not referring in particular to you, please understand Armchair) seem to assert, across a wide range of articles, that 'dominion' is still a valid term to categorise former dependencies of Great Britain. This is patently false.--Gazzster 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I don't want to make any comment on how Canada should be described except for this one: While there is apparently a government website noted by Quizimodo that states that Canada is a confederation, it most definitely is not. It is undoubtedly a federation. Lexicon (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lexicon: agreed, but my references were meant to demonstrate the apparent confusion regarding the culprit words, not just the one which naysayers have an unhealthy fixation against despite everything else.

Gazzster, please consult the articles Canada's name and Dominion: as the Canadian Encyclopedia indicates:
... under the Constitution, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title.

Each article possesses a number of references which corroborate this including How Canadians Govern Themselves, a volume produced by the federal government. Moreover, various citations have been provided for what the meaning of 'dominion' is, not only what it once meant. Please note, though, that this debate does not concern what the name of the country is, but the appropriate syntax in the second paragraph as to what was created upon Confederation.

Of course, given the pernicious and hyper-reactive point-of-view editing this has resulted in, we can defer to alternate wording:
In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada" was formed.

And it is arguably neutral since it refers directly to the constitution. Of course I don't prefer this per se, but disruptive edits and editors as of late may require it. Quizimodo 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Arbitrary break~~
I thought the main issue under discussion here was whether or not to include dominion in the lede/lead, not whether or not is was EVER appropriate to apply the term "dominion" to Canada. Requesting a source to support its being contentious in the lede is silly - the only source that could ever be applicable is the talk page. The discussion needs to focus on one issue at a time --JimWae 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is 'silly' to provide a reference, you of course shouldn't have any difficulty in finding one. Unless, of course, your point of view is equally 'silly' ... The only sources that are applicable are ones we can verify ... and those in support of the assertion have been provided in abundance. Quizimodo 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you don't think it silly to ask for an external reference for an internal matter (whether to include it in the lede)? Nobody is proposing the lede actually SAY "dominion" is a contentious term --JimWae 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, your understanding of the main issue is rather correct; it just so happens that it coincides with your second point (IMO), that its usage is also appropriate in this particular context.

And, no, I don't think it silly: provide a reliable reference which alludes to the apparent controversy of using the term, i.e., the contemporary controversy surrounding the aptness of 'dominion', if any. Otherwise, it's an artificial controversy, the product of editors who choose not to attribute their assertions or who push agendas of whatever stripe. Quizimodo 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~It is Dominion, not the lower case dominion. You folkes just seem to be not able to get that straight. Oi, Oi :(~~
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
AVD, please see the entries for 'Canada' and 'dominion' in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (they should be on the relevant talk pages) -- lower case initial 'd' is appropriate here, just as with kingdom, republic, et al. Quizimodo 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tangential issue that may need resolved at some point: from my view there is a generic "dominion" - any territory belonging to a ruler - and there is a specific "Dominion" - any self-governing entity within the British Empire still under jurisdiction of Whitehall. Prior to 1867 Canada was a "dominion" of Victoria; in 1867 it became a "Dominion" of the British Empire while remaining a "dominion" of Victoria; it is today no longer a "Dominion" of the Empire, though it is a "dominion" of Elizabeth II. --G2bambino 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~No argument. :) Quizimodo 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~What is the Capital of Canada? Ottawa? Or the NCR?~~
From the government of Canada's website: "Canada’s Capital straddles the border of two provinces (Ontario and Quebec), contains two major cities (Ottawa and Gatineau) and has two official languages (English and French)." (http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16297-24515-25108&lang=1)
So, the government of Canada says that "Canada's Capital" is the NCR, but this article says that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. Should that be changed?
On one hand, the constitution says that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. On the other hand, it's hard to deny that the government buildings now span both Ottawa and Gatineau. (The constitution was written back when Ottawa was a tiny industrial town.)
Perhaps Ottawa is the de jure capital while Ottawa-Gatineau is the de facto capital?
What do you think? Personally, I think the article should be changed to say that the capital is the NCR, but I wouldn't mind seeing if we can reach a consensus here first. Scientivore 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The capital of Canada is Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Period. End-stop.~~
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Agreed. -- Reaper X 02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Fist of all, thank you for discussing it here first. If all Wikipedians would do this, there would be far less needless cntentious editing.

I think that the confusuon here lies in the source you cite. A tourist guide is not exactly a scholarly reference, and they are often poorly written. For example, the opening sentence identifies Ottawa as the capital:
"Ottawa is one of four capitals (with London, Johannesburg and Budapest) that are neo-Gothic in style and spirit."

The NCR is a census region that identifies the the Metropolitain area of Ottawa. Ottawa is the capital city, though. The confusion is understandable. --Soulscanner 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the NCR is not a census region. It's an area that's been specially designated by the government to be overseen by the National Capital Commission. I can only assume that they would do that because they intend for the entire NCR to be considered the "capital" in some sense. Scientivore 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... In the United States, the National Capital Region refers to Washington, DC, and parts of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. NCR is an official designation used by the federal government for administrative purposes, and many federal agencies have their main offices outside the District of Columbia, but within the NCR. Still, the official capital of the United States is Washington, DC. Is the situation in Canada similar? Perhaps the key is the word "region," encompassing the greater metropolitan area that surrounds the official capital. It's a convenient designation for a closely-connected set of communities, but it's not a municipal entity (the NCR itself doesn't have a local government, police force, etc, though the individual cities within it do). How similar is the situation in Ottawa? Mtb174 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the Washington situation but, from your description, it does sound very similiar. The capital of Canada is Ottawa but government buildings and institutions are on both sides of the river and the National Capital Commission oversees the use of federal buildings, land, and events in the NCR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same issue as Ottawa/NCR could be brought up in relation to the capital of the United Kingdom and the capital of Nova Scotia. The British Parliament and even the Royal Courts of Justice and Buckingham Palace are located in the City of Westminster, not the City of London, both of which are small cities at the heart of what the world knows as "London". As for Nova Scotia, the City of Halifax no longer exists as a political entity, having been replaced with the Halifax Regional Municipality (which, unlike Ontario's Regional Municipalities, has a unitary government). London is undoubtedly the capital of the UK, however, and "Halifax" is still considered the capital of Nova Scotia, even if it doesn't really exist. Lexicon (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Discuss issue at Dominion and Canada's name articles~~
This issue of using the word Dominion has been debated before, and a preamble referring editors to the article "Canada's name" exists precisely to avoid this kind of contentious debate. The referenced article and the etymology document the evolution of this word, and provide a longstanding consensus.
I recommend a similar tack be taken here, as the issue is so similar that it would be splitting hairs to say that it was different. Issues regarding whether Canada was a Dominion in 1867 or remains one should be discussed at the Dominion page. Once a consensus definition is clarified there, we can decide whether the terminology is clear enough to use in the lead here. --Soulscanner 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~No, and No.~~
~~Let us discuss these 2 issues here, in 1 place.~~
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Soulscanner: you continue to confuse the issues. Many country articles have etymology articles, but this debate isn't about the country's name. You initiated discourse regarding this at the beginning of September, and I responded. Weeks passed until you started throwing up a stink. Throughout, few -- if any -- germane citations have been provided to support the willful exclusion of the current wording. And, as you have pointed out, there is no consensus as yet to remove the current phrasing here, either ... which has been in place for more than a month now.

Your attempt at redirecting the debate elsewhere, regarding notions which you have confused by your very edits, while insinuating contestable edits here is a non-starter and disruptive.
AVD, see above. If you wish to renew a debate about what the country's name is, do it elsewhere. This rather lengthy and drawn out debate concerns the syntax in the 2nd paragraph regarding the entity that arose upon Confederation, not to serve as a pulpit. Quizimodo 13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dominion is a contentious term that compromises the neutrality of the article. I have provided several references to do so, and will continue to do so on the Dominion article. Please go there if you wish to debate the issue.
For now I have replaced the unreferenced termninology with a reference that explicitly states that Confederation made Canada a federation. Please do not remove the referenced fact. It is against wiki policy to do so without consensus. --Soulscanner 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the dispute is about changes to this article, I strongly advise that any debate takes place on this talk page. The Dominion talk page is for discussion of changes to the Dominion article, not for discussion of changes to the Canada article, and still less for discussion of policy on the use of the term "Dominion" across Wikipedia. Any such general policy discussion should be carried out on the relevant policy pages. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dominion is a contentious term that compromises the neutrality of the article. I have given at least 9 reasons for this, and the majority of people here agree that the term is contentious for a number of reasons. I do not have has much time on my hands as others here, so you'll have to excuse that I don't respond to all of the 20 odd posts you place here everyday. I've provided several references to support my, and will continue to put as I edit the Dominion article. Please go there if you wish to debate the issue. For now I have replaced the contentious, unreferenced terminology that most editors oppose with an uncontentious terminology that is explicitly supported by a scholarly reference. It explicitly states that Confederation made Canada a federation. Please do not remove this referenced fact. It is against wiki policy to do so without consensus. --Soulscanner 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is ironic -- hypocritical actually -- that you vehemently support retaining one referenced fact while suppressing and persistently removing another. Other points -- inflated, misleading, or boldly incorrect -- are dealt with above and below. Quizimodo 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, DR: the proponent’s route sounds like a 'divide and conquer' tactic and one meant to continue obfuscating the issue.~~
Ss, no: your editing and that of other naysayers compromises the correctness and neutrality of the article. You have only provided 'references' that allude to prior use of the term, including a blog (filibusters) from a 22 year old, and have provided NO reliable ones in support of exclusion. Here and at 'Dominion', you have insinuated inexactitude and (with others) perpetuate a pro-republican viewpoint which demands correction. In sum: other assumptions aside, it seems that you resort to disruption when you are unable to persuade.
As well, I have provided but one reference to support the current text. I have moved the reference recently added down (it can actually be moved back to its prior spot), but question why it should be added at all when better ones exist (hence its former removal) and since the fact of Canada being a federation is not in dispute. As well, as addressed above, we do not need to mention and link 'federation' twice in the lead, and the current text obviates the need to do so. Besides: consistent with summary style etc., weren't we trying to have a streamlined lead without the need for the eyesore of inline citations? Thanks for stirring the pot s'more.
Anyhow, if you truly doubt the assertion, we can always merely indicate that, per the constitution, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada" was formed upon Confederation. Take your pick. Quizimodo 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The archaic nature of Dominion is well documented under Canada's name and in the Etymology section. It is based on these that Dominion of Canada was rejected as Canada's current name. The nomenclature is antiquated and ambiguous. I am just repeating myself here; I've summarized these arguments above. The quote you site is given in the history section where it is fine. I see no mention of the unusual expression "federal dominion". I see one quote using "federation" and another using "federal state". Lets use these unless stated otherwise. --Soulscanner 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating yourself serves no-one, least of the all the editors who must sift through it. Your willful blindness persists: the reference directly supports the assertion, indicating "a federal state, the Dominion of Canada." The Commonwealth secretariat indicates that, among other things, the "British North America Act of 1867 brought together four British colonies ... in one federal Dominion under the name of Canada." Also consult this volume. The citation from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary indicates 'federation with dominion status', which you also seem to have difficulty with. The deprecation of the term is not in dispute, but how is 'federal dominion' any more unusual than 'federal constitutional monarchy' or (by analogy) 'federal republic' (e.g., of Germany)?

Like, what is your problem? If you insist, I can substitute verbatim the text from the constitution, which also indicates upfront that "the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion". That should settle things, no? Quizimodo 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) As already explained above, Dominion in 1867 referred to any colony within the British Empire. Nova Scotia, the Province of Canada, and New Brunswick were already British colonies, and hence Dominions. The Dominion designation changed nothing. It was just a word chosen to avoid using the word Kingdom, which would have offended the Americans. This origin is well documented in the etymology and on Canada's name. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Dominion" - as a title - did not refer specifically to a colony within the British Empire; from 1867 on there were many colonies of the Empire that did not, and never did, become Dominions. The fact the term was chosen in place of "kingdom" only serves to highlight this fact. --G2bambino 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are incorrect. In 1867 the term Dominion did not refer to any colony within the British Empire.
Colony: a possession with or without a locally elected assembly.
Province: a possession with a locally elected assembly. This is known as a Representative Government.
Self-Governing Province: a possession with a locally elected assembly that the Governor, by convension, is not supposed to over-rule (also known as a Self-Governing Colony). This known is as a Responsible Government (i.e, the Governor is responsible to the Elected Assembly).
Dominion: (a short form for a Self-Governing Dominion) a country in Personal Union with the UK.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2) Canada is no longer a dominion. It has been clearly documented above that the name of Dominions (which designated colonial status with limited self-govenment) was changed to Comonwealth Realm in 1948. Hence the term is archaic. That is why it is no longer Canada's name. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2) Canada is a dominion; i.e. the territorial possession of a ruler. However, that point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Are you trying to draw support by confusing people about what the actual issue is? --G2bambino 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archaic ... which meaning.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archaic
Next, you are utterly incorrect again. The term Dominion does not mean colonial status with limited self-government (that would be a Self-Governing Colony). Dominion does not equate to a Self-Governing Colony. Lastly what the hell happenned in 1948 to formally include the term Realm?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3) What changed in 1867 was the creation of a new federal level of government operating on a federal principle. This federal principle (the division of powers between provincial and federal governments) survives today. Canada is obviously no longer a dominion; it is not a colony of Britain, self governing or otherwise. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good Grief, Charlie Brown. What utter circular non-sensical rubbish. The Dominion of Canada (or just "Canada") was not created as a resurrected Dominion of New England, nor a Federation of the West Indies, Federation of Malaya, or Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Get a grip eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Soulscanner finds that references are, perhaps rightly, needed in order to include a term that describes what Canada became in 1867 - i.e. a federation - then why not satisfy those reqirements by simply adding footnotes after the word "dominion"? We have three now, after all. --G2bambino 21:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because only one reference directly says that Canada became a federal Dominion (the one from the website promoting the Monarchy that doesn't mention its author), whereas the others quite explicitly stress that Canada became a federation or a federal state. Also, the federal principle in Canada is way more important than the colonial one emphasized by the word dominion. As well, it does not promote a monarchist POV. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have references that state Canada became a Dominion, and references that state Canada became a federation; there's no need to search out other references that specifically include the words "federal" and "Dominion" right next to each other. Please stop being obtuse. --G2bambino 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the fact that the majority of people here, for reasons I outlined above, do not accept this terminology as relevant, clear or current. Dominion is a vague term associated with British colonialism (that is why decolonization in British colonies involved the Commonwealth changing the name of former colonies from Dominions to Commonwealth Realms and Canada dropping it from it's name). Federation (or federal state) is clearly and objectively defined as having a division of powers between a central federal government and subsidiary provinces or states. It is non-contenrious and NPOV. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And still you continue to misrepresent the actual issue. This isn't a matter of what's current, this is a matter of what's past. This isn't a matter of removing the word "federation," this is a matter of retaining the historically accurate, contextually relevant, concise, referenced word "Dominion." I don't believe anyone's falling for your machinations. --G2bambino 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And since Soulscanner has precipitated an edit war, I have added references to support the assertion. At this point, Ss and naysayers must explain why the current wording is unacceptable despite citation ... and have not yet done so.

Hereafter, I will not follow malcontents into the morass of edit warring, but be warned that further disruption won't be tolerated. Quizimodo 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. No need for personal attacks. If you think I've violated Wiki guidelines, go to arbitration. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With your attitude and edit warring, please don't be surprised if assumptions of good faith have been supplanted by others -- one reaps what one sows. At this point, arbitration is premature and other options are available, but perhaps a wider request for comment may be called for. Quizimodo 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quizimodo. Wikipedia works basically on the "Gang-Principle" (i.e., the fancy literary term of "Cabals"). The Canada page is basically an intractible mass of mis-information due to this basic fact. Good luck trying to change anything.
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Can we have some good faith here? I do not see how accusations that one side or the other is attempting to promote monarchism or republicanism are helping to resolve this. - Eron ^Talk 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Given the intractable behaviour indicated above, that is exceedingly difficult. Quizimodo 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Dominion is "neutral" ... is it not?~~
How does the term Dominion comprimise the neutrality of the Canada article?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~In this article, it's certainly polarizing. I'm happy to see the article locked, edit wars never solve anything. GoodDay 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
An arguement can be readily presented to demonstrate that Canada from 1867-1982 was a Dominion. Another arguement can be readily presented to demonstrate that after the Canada Act 1982, that Canada is still a Dominion (i.e., post 1982).
However, such things will simply be dismissed by the majority of Wikipedians here. They will scream original research, or exhibit willful blindness and simply not see reason.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, make your argument, rather than assume prejudice in 'the majority of Wikipedians'.You may just convince somebody. Now as I've said before, I'm not an expert in Canadian matters, so, as far as I know, 'Dominion' may be part of Canada's official title. I don't know.But I am concerned by the idea that the term 'dominion' can still be used to label a former dependency of Great Britain. This is incorrect. No nation uses the term to describe itself; the UK has not used the term since 1948; the Empire no longer exists, so there is no context in which 'dominion' may retain any validity; it implies a notion of subservience to the UK, and so is considered demeaning by the nations of the former Empire. If Canada uses 'dominion' in it's title, I would ask you to demonstrate that it is in a specific context proper to Canada alone, and does not carry colonial overtones. Similarly I would ask you to acknowledge that the other Commonwealth realms are not described as dominions.--Gazzster 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gazzster. Thank you for kindly asking me to make my analysis/arguements on Canada as being a Dominion. I shall do this to the best of my ability indeed.
One thing that may be of interest to you as an Australian, is that in the original Australian Constitution of 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was explicitly declared in the text as a Federal Commonwealth (this was taken later to mean a Federal Dominion).
I do know that the proposed name of the Dominion of Australia was debated and formally rejected. Do you know why? I'm asking you as an Australian, as me-self as an English-Canadian am not certain why this occurred eh.
Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your courtesy. About 'Federal Commonwealth': if you look at our discourse above, it was actually myself who pointed out to you that this term is used in the Constitution, rather than 'Federal Dominion', which you were asserting. I do not know what you mean by 'taken later to mean a Federal Dominion.' By whom, and when? I have never heard of the phrase. Give me a reference.I have not heard of any debate to call Australia the 'Dominion of Australia'. If there was it must have been during the constitutional conventions before federation in 1901, for the Constitution itself never uses the phrase. I take it that you are retracting the idea that Dominion of Australia is a title. Thanks for your honesty. As for why such a name might have been rejected, I cannot say. I can only suggest that 'dominion' implied a notion of subservience to Great Britain, which, even in 1901, was considered opprobrious to most Australians, in particular to the Irish who formed a good part of the population.Cheers. --Gazzster 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why so-called dominion status was meaningless in 1867, and is equally meaningless now.~~
N.B. Main points of this edit have been placed as requested in lead in article Canada's name. --Soulscanner 11:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dominion designation changed nothing in 1867; it was chosen to appease American republican sensibilities, and clearly aimed to uphold a strong Monarchist ideology. It was by no means chosen to devolve any authority from Britain. Please refer to Canada's name#Adoption_of_Dominion for full, documented explanation of why name was chosen. What changed was the formation of a federation. The Dominion title was just a name chosen at the last minute.

Canada remained subservient to Britain in every way. When we talk of Dominion legislation, we are talking about the legislation of a colony with Responsible Government, which British North American colonies all achieved in the 1840's. Confederation did not change this. The change was one of going from several small colonies with responsible government to one big colony with responsible government.
"When the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 it was granted powers of self-government to deal with all internal matters, but Britain still retained overall legislative supremacy. This imperial supremacy could be exercised through several statutory measures. In the first place, the Constitution Act of 1867 provides in s.55 that the Governor General may reserve any legislation passed by the two Houses of Parliament for "the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure", which is determined according to s.57 by the (British) Queen in Council. Secondly, s.56 provides that the Governor General must forward to "one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary's of State" in London a copy of any federal legislation that has been assented to; within two years after the receipt of this copy, the (British) Queen in Council can disallow an Act. Thirdly, four pieces of Imperial legislation constrained the Canadian legislatures. The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 provided that no colonial law could validly conflict with, amend or repeal Imperial legislation which explicitly or by necessary implication applied directly to that colony; the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 as well as the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 required reservation of Dominion legislation on those topics for approval by the British Government; and, the Colonial Stock Act of 1900 provided for the disallowance of Dominion legislation which the British government felt would harm British stockholders of Dominion trustee securities. Most importantly, however, the British Parliament could exercise the legal right of supremacy it possessed at common law to pass any legislation on any matter affecting the colonies." ^[2]
~~So Confederation clearly changed nothing with regard to Canada's autonomy. With reference to Responsible Government gained by BNA colonies in the 1840's:~~
"By the time of Confederation in 1867, this system had been operating in most of what is now central and eastern Canada for almost 20 years. The Fathers of Confederation simply continued the system they knew, the system that was already working, and working well."^[3]
Dominion "status" as self-governing states, despite symbolic titles granted various British colonies, only came into being in 1919 when the "self-governing" Dominions signed the Treaty of Versailles^[4]:
"The First World War ended the purely colonial period in the history of the Dominions. Their military contribution to the Allied war effort gave them claim to equal recognition with other small states and a voice in the formation of policy. This claim was recognized within the Empire by the creation of the Imperial War Cabinet in 1917, and within the community of nations by Dominion signatures to the Treaty of Versailles and by seperate Dominion representation in the League of Nations. In this way the "self-governing Dominions", as they were called, emerged as junior members of the international community. Their status defied exact analysis by both international and constitutional lawyers, but it was clear that they were no longer to be regarded simply as colonies of Britain."
~~The definition of Dominion was deliberately vague in order to deny the British Dominions more autonomy:~~
~~"Never at any time in [1919-39] was the full international personality of the Dominions, as distinct from Great Britain, established beyond equivocation" ^[5]~~
The end of Dominion status is regarded as occurring with the declaration of war in September 1939. This asserted Canada's sovereignty in international affairs; becasue Britain accepted the delay (it was three days later than Britain's declaration), it put an end to the semi-colonial status that Dominion implied:
"Today it is firmly established as a basic constitutional principle that, so far as relates to Canada, the King is regulated by Canadian law and must act only on the advice and responsibility of Canadian ministers".^[6]
Because the word Dominion is a colonial vestige that has no meaning in anything but historical contexts, the word was gradually dropped from all government titles and departments, including Canada's name. I don't need a reference to show that. This is done because Canada was no longer a Dominion. Dominions haven't even existed in theory since the 1950's when all Commonwealth legal documents dropped the name in favor of Commonwealth Realm. "Dominion" is only used in historical contexts.

Unlike the vague, nebulous, and temporary state of Canada being a dominion (first a colony, then a semi-autonomous colony, then an autonomous state within the Commonwealth ending in 1939), Canada survives as a federation. It is still a defining and debated principle in Canadian life. There are probably esoteric legal arguements to support that Canada is a dominion or Dominion (the correct spelling isn't even clear), but it doesn't matter because it is simply a moot point in Canadian politics; Britain or the Queen could try to assert its authority over Canada again, but everyone would just yawn. The federal principle is what changed in 1867, and is what continues to define the Canadian polity.
~~--Soulscanner 10:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk • contribs) [reply]~~

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Central Intelligence Agency (2006-05-16). "The World Factbook: Canada". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2007-05-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

^ Andrew Heard (2007-10-14). "Canadian Independence". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

^ Eugene Foresey (2007-10-14). "How Canadians Govern Themselves"". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

^ F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law. 38 (1): 34–49.

^ F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law. 38 (1): 34–49.

^ F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law. 38 (1): 34–49.

~~Hello Soulscanner.~~
(1). Please sign your posts (this section had no signature).
(2). If you post in many paragraphs ... people will break-up your post to respond to each paragraph. This is NOT vandalism.
(3). I own the references that you are speaking of with regards to the supposed end of Dominion Status. I have read them in full.
(4). You are NOT the final word on the interpretation of the Canadian Constitution, the country's name, nor the historical context of what Dominion means.
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Poll: Is Federation better than federal dominion for describing Canada ?~~
I think we need a poll to clarify where we all stand.
All here agree that Canada became a federation in 1867 and that it essential for understanding what Canada currently is. We are in disagreement as to whether this is the case with "federal dominion". Indeed, the only source that supports use of this word is a website from the Commonwealth Office that has no author or references listed; it is also hosted by an organization dedicated to promoting the British Monarch. It is not an academic source.
Is "federation" (or "federal state") a better word than "federal dominion" for describing Canada in the lead? --Soulscanner 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - For reasons stated above.

This poll is moot, for reasons stated further above. Despite your original, lengthy synthesis immediately above, Canada is already described (indisputably) as a 'federation' in the lead (3rd paragraph). Clarity is required, however, when describing the sort of entity that resulted from the union of British provinces upon Confederation. Frankly, your continual rejection of verifiable references is absurd: I merely need to iterate the relevant text from Canada's constitution (Constitution Act, 1867) to demonstrate the point:[13]
"The Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion..." (preamble)

and
"the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada" (section 3)

And, despite your riposte, none of the references you have provided support the argument to exclude. (As well, the JSTOR references are only available to those with university accounts, so we can't corroborate assertions made. Anyhow, this paper seems to assert that which we already know regarding the increasing autonomy of these entities over time, but are mum about what sort of entity Canada became in 1867.)

In fact, the only mention of Canada being 'federal' therein is accompanied by its designation as a dominion. So, at this point, any rejection of including 'dominion' in the lead as is must be accompanied by a similar intent to eject notions of federalism in that sentence as well. These notions are inextricably linked: the current rendition equitably pays tribute to both, while Ss's 'proposal' is rather limited in focus. How do you like them apples? Quizimodo 14:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia makes no requirements that sources be on the web, only that they be scholarly and verifiable. Go to the library if you wish to verify them. The Frank Scott article clearly states that dominion status (i.e. self-governing colony) did not exist until 1919. Hence, it is not appropriate to include this status at the time of confederation. --Soulscanner 10:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This poll is moot - Indeed, there is not one source so far presented that affirms the inapplicability of "Dominion" to explain what kind of federation Canada became in 1867. Instead, Soulscanner has yet again resorted to acrobatics of logic (read: OR) and the creation of false controversies in order to subdue a certain word that causes him offence (a conclusion I come to in part because of his constant relation of this argument to monarchism, his designation of the Canadian sovereign as a foreigner, his embarrassment over the colonial associations with the term "Dominion", etc.; all irrelevant points). --G2bambino 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - In 1867, the British North American colonies began to unite in a federation. It is true that it was entitled a dominion but that fact is best served, as it is, in later sections and other articles. The introduction should be a clear and simple overview of the topic and avoid the complicated issue of the meaning of "dominion". The important fact in the sentence in question is that the three colonies united in a federation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yet, what kind of federation is to be left to the reader's imagination? Please, can we stop making this an issue about the country's name?? This is about the formation of a new and very unique type of entity within the British Empire. If we'd stop complicating the matter with extraneous garbage, that point would be very clear, to both us and article readers. --G2bambino 16:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Details are best left in other sections and articles Canada#History, Canada#Government and politics, History of Canada#Post-Confederation Canada 1867-1914, Post-Confederation Canada (1867-1914). This is not about Canada's name; I am among the minority here that believes Canada's title is still "Dominion". This is about a clear and concise introduction. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, then. However, the question remains: how do we make a clear and consise introduction without using the term "dominion"? So far, proposals put forward either simply eliminate the word, leaving it unclear what kind of federation Canada became, or substitute the word for a more lengthy and convoluted explanation. If, from a editorial point of view, "dominion" is both accurate and succinct, why then avoid it? --G2bambino 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dominion" is unclear, as Soulscanner rightly pointed out, its exact meaning was not defined. I believe the sentence in question should stick to the fact that the colonies of British North America united in a federation. The following sentence is for describing the degree of independence, which is another can of worms best left till this one is closed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "dominion" in this context is hardly unclear. Again, any confusion is the result of a particular editor creating confusion where there otherwise would be none. --G2bambino 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question already sticks to that fact and does so equitably -- i.e., that the colonies 'federally united into One Dominion'. If the current succinct paraphrase won't do, then the verbatim reference from the constitution should be more than adequate. I cannot speak for nor relate to the artificial confusion which a clutch of editors here and elsewhere continue to promote, despite citations to the contrary. Quizimodo 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Canada: Another two cents worth. As a genealogist / historian primary source documents refer to the Dominion of Canada often, and I have never encountered federation in reference to Canada. For instance, early homesteaders proved up Dominion lands and received letters patent from the Dominion Government of Canada. The first sentence in the public domain document: Canada is quite compact. Canada, or to be more exact, the Dominion of Canada, comprises all that part of North America north of the United States, with the exception of Newfoundland, Labrador, and Alaska. The distance from the Atlantic Ocean on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west is 3000 miles, and from the borders of the United States to the farthest point in the Arctic Ocean at least 1500 miles. With its 3,745,574 square miles, Canada exceeds in size both the united States and Australasia, and is almost as large as Europe. The 2004 CIA factbook on Canada also remains with a 'a self-governing dominion in their definition. However as mentioned above, Dominion was dropped in 1982 1. I happen to like the wording Dominion of Canada, for my vote. SriMesh | talk 04:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. FYI: please see here [14], here [15] (pp. 8-9), Canada's_name#Use_of_Canada_and_Dominion_of_Canada, and Dominion#Canada: the national holiday may have been renamed (per your reference), but the country's title was not 'dropped'. Anyhow, the point of contention throughout this discussion regards the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph, which clearly yet succinctly describes the polity (a 'federal dominion') that resulted from Confederation. Feel free to weigh in. Quizimodo 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For reasons stated above. No referencing is needed to support what is, ultimately, an editorial decision. Term dominion is not clear (IMHO) to users not steeped in this issue and should be avoided in the lead. Dominion text follows two paragraphs later and is sufficiently detailed, and hence dominion term is by no means banished from this article, whatever the disputes over its meaning or significance. A term that provokes such extensive controversy should not be used in the lead.--Gregalton 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing is at the heart of content in this exercise. The fact that this has provoked an artificial controversy, which is neither reflected in cited literature nor in the zeitgeist, is an even greater testament to the utility of references which say differently. I'm glad you concur that the term shouldn't be 'banished' since, in this context in the lead, it is very appropriate. (Other instance are not the matter of dispute.) As well, to date, I see no challenges to excluding complex notions of federalism for the benefit of users not steeped in that issue, either -- in all instances, this is mitigated through the use of piped linking to relevant articles/topics, which is a major function of a wiki. Quizimodo 15:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federalism clearly divides political powers between a federal government and provinces. The Canada Act of 1867 clearly identifies most of these powers. It clearly began in Canada in 1867. I've seen various sources ascribe the beginning of dominion status to 1867, 1907, and 1919 and its end to 1939, 1947, and 1953. Given sources also attest to the fact that its definition was deliberately vague and unclear. --Soulscanner 10:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur. Since you have invoked the original 1867 act regarding, without contest, Canadian federalism (which is by name mentioned once in the act), you shouldn't have any objection to its designation as a 'Dominion' in that very same act (mentioned four times) either. Quizimodo 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Fourth sentence of the second paragraph~~
I'm not particularly sure where this will go, but I felt the debate over the use of this single word had become far too convoluted, whether purposefully or accidentally, for anyone to keep a grasp on the actual issue. Thus, I thought I'd attempt to sum up the arguments. As I'm more familiar with the pro-dominion arguments, it seems obvious the pro arguments here are more hashed out. Please feel free to add/edit as appropriate. --G2bambino 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Debate~~
~~So that we're clear, the debate focuses on the use of the word "dominion" in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of this article:~~
In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federal dominion. (or, possibly; ...became a federation with dominion status.)
Note: this does not pertain to Canada's name and the use of "dominion" therein.

Note: this does not relate to monarchism or republicanism
~~Arguments~~
~~Arguments in favour of retention of "dominion":~~
Mentioning 'd/Dominion' clarifies matters regarding pre-/post-Confederation changes in governance.

The term is archaic/historical in many important contexts, but is not in this one.

The wording is properly placed and consistent with summary style.

No evidence supports the existence of controversy or contentiousness associated with the use of "dominion" in this context beyond that which has been artificially created here.

The main proponent of excluding "dominion" on the grounds of its being contentious earlier supported the inclusion of "dominion" in the lead.

"Dominion" is no less confusing and/or archaic than "federation" or "confederation," two words to which nobody objects.

It becomes difficult to explain what kind of federation Canada became in 1867 while avoiding use of "dominion."

Citations support its use:
Canadian Oxford Dictionary, entry for 'Canada' (p. 220): Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867...

Canadian Encyclopedia: In 1914 the king declared war on behalf of the entire empire, but the Dominions (a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members) decided...

Constitution Act, 1867: Preamble: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown...; II Union: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada...

CIA World Factbook, entry for Canada: Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867...

The one main cite provided in argument against its use is a personal website of a 22 year old university student, and thus does not conform to WP:V.
~~Arguments against retention of "dominion":~~
The word is contentious.

The word is confusing.

The term is archaic.

The term adds nothing to the article.

Including "dominion" in the lead compromises the neutrality of the article.

Dominion status was meaningless in 1867.
~~Summary of Response~~
~~Here's a short summary of response. References can be found on my postings above and below. Thank you. --Soulscanner 10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Mentioning 'd/Dominion' clarifies matters regarding pre-/post-Confederation changes in governance.

It does not. It confuses things. It gtranted canada no new autonomy, as outlined by referenced sources above. Including dominion in this way gives the misleading impression that it did.

This is merely more of your pseudo-controversy pap. Autonomy is a straw-man argument: nobody but you has raised it. Confederation in 1867 gave Canada a new and unique status within the Empire, that is the point. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term is archaic/historical in many important contexts, but is not in this one.

In this context (Confederation of 1867), it simply does not apply. Dominion status did not exist until 1919. It ended in 1939 for Canada.
Numerous sources say the contrary. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: the sole, direct mention of Canada's federal nature in the 1867 act is accompanied by its affirmation as a dominion, in the preamble:

"... the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom..."

So, what's that about usage in this particular context? Quizimodo 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is properly placed and consistent with summary style.

It is referenced with dubious sources or with sources that do not support its use.

The sources meet WP:V. I mean, do you really think the actual text of the Constitution Act is an unreliable source? --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence supports the existence of controversy or contentiousness associated with the use of "dominion" in this context beyond that which has been artificially created here.

Frank Scott was a respected constitutional lawyer; the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1911 clearly referred to African colonies as dominions of Queen Victoria;

More straw men. To the first point: where did Scott say "dominion" is controversial in conjunction to Canada's evolution in 1867? To the second: you willfully confuse the generic definition of "dominion" to the specific definition which we're dealing with here. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dominion" is no less confusing and/or archaic than "federation" or "confederation," two words to which nobody objects.

We all agree that Canada became a federation or a federal state in 1867; there is a far greater consensus for this among editors than for the meaning of "dominion"; that is why federation is a better choice than dominion;

Any confusion about the meaning of "dominion" in this context is the problem of two or three editors. The quirks in understanding of a minor few should not dictate the composition of Wikipedia, and links to the article Dominion should suffice for those who actually can't grasp what the word means within the sentence provided. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes difficult to explain what kind of federation Canada became in 1867 while avoiding use of "dominion."

No one has demonstrated a need to show what kind of federation it was. The main fact of Confederation was the creation of federal and provincial levels of government. Little if any extra autonomy was conferred upon these governments, making the later use of the term "dominion" (i.e. an autonomous colony) inapplicable in 1867. Hillmer refers to Canada as a federation without calling it a federal dominion. He correctly says that Canada was called a Dominion in 1867, but avoids assigning it dominion status in 1867 because he knows that the issue is debated and that all possession of Queen Victoria were called this throughout her reign.

To the contrary, it is even more confusing to leave out what kind of federation Canada became; was it fully independent? Was is republican? Was it colonial? Canada's confederation in 1867 was a unique creation within the British Empire, a type of entity which was, and is, dubbed a "Dominion." As already pointed out, you're being purposefully obtuse in your demands for a cite which uses the specific combination of words "federal dominion." We have sources that affirm Canada became a Dominion in 1867, and sources that affirm Canada became a federation in 1867, hence it's simple to say Canada became a federal Dominion. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations support its use

I've provided several scholarly citations that argue against its use. The sources provided show how contentious and poorly understood the term is. Moreover, they provide a historical explanation for why the term is so confusing.

You have either provided the personal work of a 22 year old university student (and a republican one, to boot), or misinterpreted the words of others to suit your argument. There as of yet exists no source that explicitly states - without the need for personal interpretations - that using the word "dominion" in relation to Canada's new status in 1867 qis either confusing or contentious. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I support every one of G2's responses, so needn't comment further. Quizimodo 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
The claim has been made above that there is no confusion about the meaning of the word dominion, except among two or three editors. These citations seem to support that not only is there confusion now about the meaning of the term, this confusion has existed for quite some time:

"They settled for ‘Dominions’, which Wilfrid Laurier of Canada said, rather enigmatically. is ‘a general term which covers many words which it is not possible to define otherwise’." ^[1]. See the ref. Wilfrid Laurier found the term undefinable, and there are still symposiums on what exactly dominion status was (and is?).

"Though no one new what the new (Dominion) status was, Great Britain began to offer it to other less favoured portions of the empire." ^[2]

"In a letter to his wife, Borden recognized the difficulty of Canada's Dominion status within the British Empire, and he wrote of "Canada's anomalous position; a nation that is not a nation. It is about time to alter it."^[3]

Presumably two (three, depending on how you interpret Mulroney's stance) PMs having some difficulty with what exactly dominion meant should suffice to make the point that Canada becoming a dominion may be a fact, but its meaning is not clear. This is why some of us are proposing to leave the point until later in the article.

I would point to the following encyclopedia article and section at [16] entitled "Towards Dominion Status": which conveniently mentions that the dominion came into being, but only specifically refers to one change: federation. So again, it was a dominion, but this is secondary in importance and ambiguous in meaning. This is the reason we are proposing leaving it out of the lead.--Gregalton 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comments from Greg Alton. I've stepped back from this debate over the last week because, quite frankly, I do not have the time or energy to wade through pages and pages of back and forth over the interpretation and use of one word in one paragraph. To judge by the reaction, one might think that some editors had proposed that the term "dominion" (or "Dominion") be eradicated from all Wikipedia articles related to Canada. That is not what is being suggested here.

What has been suggested is that given the differences of opinion - including informed scholarly and political opinion - on the exact nature of the country of Canada on 1 July 1867, and on the meaning of the word dominion in that context, that the term should not be employed in the lead. Recognizing that other defining terms - like "federation" - are also problematic in this way, my personal suggestion was to make no reference at all in the lead only to the political structure. That can be - and is - explored more fully in the body of the article and in other related articles. - Eron ^Talk 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gr: the above references may simply demonstrate the need for this and related articles -- namely, 'dominion' -- to be more comprehensive. If the term is enigmatic, that is what piped linking is for; these references should be added to the 'dominion' article and equitably expanded upon. There is no debate that federalism (quite an enigmatic political philosophy on its own) is a major outcome of Confederation, but that shall not be to the exclusion of other notions which may be equally important or informative: per the original BNA Act, both notions -- of 'federalism' and 'Dominion' -- are noted hand-in-hand. In addition, if anything, Borden's quotation sheds light on the issue and contradicts some editorial stances herein: as a dominion at the time, Canada was obviously a unique entity within the British Empire yet not fully autonomous; this should also help to guide edits that are being discussed about the latter part of the 2nd paragraph of the lead. (BTW: the 'farlex' link is available only to subscribers.)

EM, to flip your notion on its head: one would think that some editors are hyper-reacting quite severely to 'one referenced, nuanced word in one paragraph' which, in this context, is fully appropriate. However, recognition of this does not require suppression of both terms in the lead as you suggest: that would serve no one and, instead, calls for skillful editing. Quizimodo 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is trying too hard to get around a simple notion: that dominion is an ambiguous and possibly loaded word FOR THE LEAD. The idea that it was a unique entity at that time does not call for getting into this much discussion about one word which is then discussed in more detail two paragraphs later; that was the intent of the phrase 'gradual process of reducing dependence on the UK' portion. And I'm sorry, I disagree that federalism is difficult to understand for non-specialist readers (and if you honestly have a problem with that word, please outline that argument separately).

Can I ask a simple, honest question: why is it so important that the word dominion figure in the lead? I have responded to the question of why I (and some others) think it should NOT be, but still have not heard any explanation of why it is so essential that it be included in the lead. (And again, I underline I have no problem with the word figuring later and in separate articles where it is entirely appropriate).--Gregalton 16:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this entire discussion is trying to get around what should be a rather simple affair: the inclusion of a succinct and entirely appropriate word FOR THE LEAD regarding the kind of polity that resulted from Confederation in 1867, as indicated in Canada's constitution. The fact that this has generated so much controversy here, which is not reflected in the zeitgeist, is perplexing. Even if the notion is enigmatic (which some of the references above may allude to), the link to the article should be more than adequate to clarify matters.

So, to flip the question on its head: why is it so important to exclude the word from the lead? This has not been answered to satisfaction. It is not our job to spoon-feed visitors due to disagreement or disillusionment with what is basically a single, well-defined, and (given the context) important notion. This is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, a comprehensive compendium of information, not one that conforms to the lowest common denominator. Quizimodo 18:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, it was a polite and simple request. It seems many of the arguments against inclusion have been stated. The arguments for inclusion do not seem to have been stated. I would like to hear them.

And which zeitgeist are you referring to? Or rather, which age?--Gregalton 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please: atop this section, G2 itemised and summarised the arguments in favour. Did you not see these, or are you being argumentative?

As for the age in question, I am primarily (but not solely) referring to the present -- but suffice to say that significant evidence has still not been presented to corroborate that the term is as contentious as this discussion would make it 'seem', in the past or present. Quizimodo 01:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~To go point by point about the reasons for inclusion of the term dominion, then:~~
"Mentioning 'd/Dominion' clarifies matters regarding pre-/post-Confederation changes in governance."
It does not clarify much, because the term's meaning is unclear. See above.

"The term is archaic/historical in many important contexts, but is not in this one. The wording is properly placed and consistent with summary style."
The term is not used much now, and hence is not consistent with a summary style, which relies primarily on terms whose usage is current and clear to readers who may not reside in, e.g., the 19th century (for whom it may not have been clear either).
While it is archaic in many contexts, it is not in this one -- which is correctly used to describe the polity that was created in 1867. Otherwise, please consult the style manual regarding the lead section. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you link to the style guideline that contradicts the use of the word "dominion". The lead should be capable of standing alone... should be written in a clear, accessible style ... specialized terminology should be avoided... . DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read on; per the guidelines for the lead: "Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." Some of the proposals above further expand on this clearly (e.g., 'federal dominion of the British Empire/United Kingdom'). The term is no more specialised than 'confederation', 'federalism', or 'country'. In its basic form, as dictionaries indicate, it is synonymous with 'domain'. No one has yet demonstrated how the current syntax is unclear or inaccurate; its inclusion in the lead, in this context, is definitely germane. Put alternatively: willful suppression of 'dominion' in the lead (which, per the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada is by definition) makes this article less accessible and encyclopedic. Quizimodo 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
essential to describing the subject The fact that Canada was termed a Dominion is interesting but not important. Saying it became a "dominion" does not tell anyone what kind of "polity" it became. The following sentence in the lead discusses the degree of independence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is, in your opinion. Arguably, it is essential in describing the subject, and particularly in this context, as pointed out above numerous times. Indicating that Canada became a 'federal dominion' upon Confederation is more informative than indicating 'federation' in describing the resulting polity (which is already mentioned in the 3rd paragraph), and is both succinct and clear. It may not tell you anything about the sort of polity that was created, or you and others may refuse to assimilate the meaning of applicable terms, but that really doesn't matter. Between the ruminations of numerous (disillusioned) editors and reliable sources predicated on a key clause in the country's founding document, there's no question which I choose. Really, I think you are running out of straws to grasp ... A bientot. Quizimodo 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No evidence supports the existence of controversy or contentiousness associated with the use of "dominion" in this context beyond that which has been artificially created here."
As above, even prime ministers have been stumped by what the term means.
So, add these notions to the 'dominion' article, or to 'Canada's name': doing so will only make the piping of 'dominion' in the lead that much more informative. Quizimodo 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be understood without consulting other articles. The concept of dominion is appropriately mentioned and linked in later sections. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion and words; per above: "Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." Enough said. Quizimodo 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The main proponent of excluding "dominion" on the grounds of its being contentious earlier supported the inclusion of "dominion" in the lead."
Irrelevant, there is more than one proponent, and the ambiguity of the term does not depend on one individual. As above.
Wholly relevant, as it demonstrates hyprocritical and ill-informed argumentation of the proponent(s). And the continual promotion of ambiguity regarding the term doesn't depend on one or few naysayers -- including present company -- either. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Dominion" is no less confusing and/or archaic than "federation" or "confederation," two words to which nobody objects."
Dominion has been shown to be ambiguous, not true of federation, confederation in this case is used as a process which specifically refers to Canadian confederation, where piping is appropriate and sufficient.
As above, numerous sources and definitions have been provided which directly counter this assertion. Any extraneous judgements are just that and will be treated as such. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It becomes difficult to explain what kind of federation Canada became in 1867 while avoiding use of "dominion.""
Not at all. It became a federation. Federal dominion is by no means more clear. "What kind of federation" it became may be unclear, but 'federal dominion' is no more clear, due to the ambiguity of the term.
This is already noted in the 3rd paragraph. In 1867, Canada became a federal dominion, or a federation with dominion status. Do you actually challenge this?

There are some 25 federations worldwide, not all similar in structure or entitlement. You and others choose to over-simplify the matter and insinuate or exaggerate confusion. You also seem to have difficulty grasping the feature in wikis known as the piped link, which is more than sufficient to clarify any ambiguity regarding this notion. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Citations support its use:
Canadian Oxford Dictionary, entry for 'Canada' (p. 220): Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867... Canadian Encyclopedia: In 1914 the king declared war on behalf of the entire empire, but the Dominions (a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members) decided... Constitution Act, 1867: Preamble: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown...; II Union: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada... CIA World Factbook, entry for Canada: Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867... The one main cite provided in argument against its use is a personal website of a 22 year old university student, and thus does not conform to WP:V."
~~None of the citations provide any insight as to meaning of the term, other than repeating its use, which, as demonstrated above, is ambiguous.~~
Uh-huh ... Cited dictionaries provide definitions for the term, and an encyclopedia provides further insight. If these reputable publications are 'repetitive', then that represents a concordance regarding the term in reality ... and demonstrates a basic fallacy of opposing argumentation on this talk page. In other words, the term is not ambiguous just because you and others say that it is. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, if one looks at the list above, none of the reasons cited for inclusion amount to much more than a) denial of any dispute about meaning; b) claims to clarity; c) reliance upon the term for clarity; d) use in other sources. All of these reasons (it seems to me) are disputed: a) the meaning is not clear, because dispute exists; b) see (a); if the term is not clear, using it again does not make it more clear; and, d) if the sources cited do not clarify, repeating the use of an unclear term does not add to clarity. I grant (as I have before) that the use of an unclear term with longwinded explanations is fine - just not in the lead.
So: why does it need to be in the lead apart from the reasons cited?--Gregalton 09:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is circular and argumentative. These points have already been dealt with by G2 above. I find it curious that you would comment in summary underneath other comments already made; however, this is unsurprising given your initial ignorance of those responses and, whether unintentionally or by design, further conflates the issue by decentralising it.

Anyhow, If you choose to continue to dispute the reasons above apart from those cited, despite references and definitions to the contrary, that is your prerogative. But your responses -- opinions -- have not provided any additional insight. So: why should it be excluded from the lead? Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hello Gregalton. The arguements for inclusion of Canada being a federal Dominion are pretty plain.~~
~~(i). Clause 3 of the British North America Act 1867 states that Canada is a Dominion,~~
~~(ii). the division of powers section implicitly and explicitly indicates a federal government,~~
~~Therefore, 2 + 2 = 4, .... i.e., Canada is a federal Dominion.~~
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

Hello Gregalton.
Prime Minister Wilfred Lauier
He specifically coined the legal term "Self-Governing Dominion" (its short form being "Dominion") at the British Commonwealth Conference of 1907 (I own the facsmile copy of the minutes of the 1907 conference). Laurier knew exactly what Dominion meant. The comments that you quote are refering to the wish for more offical power being transfered from London.

Prime Minister Robrt Borden
He was an ardent advocate of the British Empire becoming a Federal Empire. He wanted all British Possessions to become one big "super-country". An idealistic dreamer he was indeed. The "Nation that is not a Nation" comment most like refered to the 1917 Imperial War Cabinet arguements.

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney
Mulroney? You actually quoted Mulroney. Are you daft? He was bar-none, the most hated PM in Canadian history. It was no small feat to achieve but ... Everyone disagree with what he said "Canada was".
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Armchair, I think not a few of us are tired of your abusive style of comment. Don't be so personal, please. --Gazzster 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Hello Gazzster, I am very sorry and apologise.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great examples of ad hominen arguments, AVD, attacking three Canadian PMs and another wikipedian in one post, while entirely missing the point: that the issue of the meaning of dominion is not just 'two or three editors.'--Gregalton 16:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gregalton. Point-in-fact, I did not criticise PM Sir Wilfred Laurier, nor PM Sir Robert Borden.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please remove unscholarly sources in the lead~~
I would recommend that the responders to my statement above begin countering my referenced claims instead of repeating items that I've already addressed in my referenced posts above.
Normally, we do not need to overly picky about scholarly versus institutional sources. However, at this point in the debate we are going to have insist on it. This debate has gone on too long and we need to absolutely strict about accepting only the most legitimate scholarly sources for the lead. It is obvious what the common thread is.
These three sources have been cited, ostensibly in support of calling Canada a federal dominion at the time of Confederation. None of these really support this nomenclature.
The first given source calls Canada a "federation"^[4];

The second calls Canada a "federal state" ^[5];

The third source calls Canada a "federal Dominion", with a capital "D". ^[6]
However, only the first source qualifies as a valid scholarly source in the very strict sense required here. This source appears in the Canadian Encyclopedia, and is written by a legitimate Canadian historian, Norman Hillmer of Carleton University. It is hence an acceptable source here.
The second source appears as a caption on a map of the Atlas of Canada produced by Natural Resources Canada. I cannot find the author of this document, so we cannot be sure of its source. This map caption also refers to Canada as a confederation, which appears to be mistaken. Hence it appears that some academic rigor is missing here, making it of dubious quality in comparison to the Encyclopedia article.
^{(Another 2 map sources: Survey of the Dominion) AND Physical and Commercial Analysis of the Dominion of Canada will get this atlas section online ASAP also. SriMesh | talk 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
The third source appears at the Commonwealth Commission's history page. There is no author attributed to this source. This publisher 's mission is to promote the British Commonwealth and Monarchy, so it's objectivity is dubious. It's purpose is not to document history in a scholarly fashion, but to paint the British Empire and Commonwealth in as good a light as possible. In so doing, it publishes inaccuracies.
Most troubling is the outright falsehood that the intention of the British authorities or even the Fathers of Confederation was to establish a more autonomous status for the British dominion (dominion meant colony in the nomenclature of the day). It is clearly established by explicit quotes on the article Canada's name that the intentions of choosing Dominion were: a) upholding Queen Victoria's dominion or supremacy over the Canadian territory; b) British colonial officials thought that the preferred title, "Kingdom" would offend republican sensibilities in the U.S.; c) The Premier of New Brunswick liked the biblical overtones.
No primary source is quoted that ever says that anyone in Britain granted more autonomy or that the father's of Confederation even wanted it. The quotes say quite the opposite. And the actions of Britain following confederation showed the opposite, as documented above. Britain passed laws that explicitly restricted the autonomy of colonies following Confederation, whether they were called "Dominions" or not. No incident in actions or in words recognized more autonomy for Canada or the "dominions" until 1917, and this wasn't formalized until 1919 (see sources from Frank Scott above).
Hence only Hillmer's article serves as an authoritative source. The Atlas of Canada serves as an acceptable compliment to the article. The anonymous article by the former British Colonial Office is best regarded as institutional propaganda, similar to what one might expect from the Turkish government on the Armenian genocide. It should be removed as a reference unless it is explicitly used to identify the position of the Commonwealth Commission. --Soulscanner 10:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.mch.govt.nz/dominion/mcintyre.html The Development and Significance of Dominion Status, Speech for Dominion Status Symposium

^ http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300(194401)38:1%3C34:TEODS%3E2.0.CO;2-B The End of Dominion Status, F. R. Scott, in the American Journal of International Law."

^ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/primeministers/stories/rb-20020126.html Brian Mulroney, "He stood for us", Globe and Mail.

^ Hillmer, Norman. "Commonwealth" (html). Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Project. Retrieved 2007-10-09. With CONFEDERATION in 1867, Canada became the first federation in the British Empire ... {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

^ "Territorial evolution" (html/pdf). Atlas of Canada. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved 2007-10-09. In 1867, the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are united in a federal state, the Dominion of Canada....

^ "Canada: History" (html/pdf). Country Profiles. Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 2007-10-09. The British North America Act of 1867 brought together four British colonies ... in one federal Dominion under the name of Canada.

~~Souscanner do you understand the difference between Absolute-Monarchy, and Constitutional-Monarchy?~~
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have only one simple reply to this confusing, repetitive, phobic riposte: if you challenge (nonsensically) the validity of the reliable references already provided, we shall substitute the current wording with the precise syntax from Canada's constitution (Constitution Act, 1867) regarding this point:
In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[17] was formed.

OR
Upon Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were "federally united into One Dominion (under the Crown of the United Kingdom)".[18]

which (without the parenthetical) has the benefit of being very concise ... or similar, like:
~~Upon Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were "federally united into One Dominion" of the British Empire(/United Kingdom) named Canada.[19]~~
Take your pick. That's it -- I'm done. Quizimodo 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I am okay with either, but lean more towards the first. --G2bambino 19:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- I mildly prefer the second option (perhaps with tweaks, as above) because, within the context of this discussion, both notions (that of Canada becoming a 'federal dominion') are encapsulated in the quotation from the text of the constitution, which should assuage those who may contest it. Suggestions? Quizimodo 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is outright rubbish~~
~~Soulscanner wrote,~~
"The third source appears at the Commonwealth Commission's history page. There is no author attributed to this source. This publisher 's mission is to promote the British Commonwealth and Monarchy, so it's objectivity is dubious. It's purpose is not to document history in a scholarly fashion, but to paint the British Empire and Commonwealth in as good a light as possible. In so doing, it publishes inaccuracies."
"Most troubling is the outright falsehood that the intention of the British authorities or even the Fathers of Confederation was to establish a more autonomous status for the British dominion (dominion meant colony in the nomenclature of the day). It is clearly established by explicit quotes on the article Canada's name that the intentions of choosing Dominion were:

"a). upholding Queen Victoria's dominion or supremacy over the Canadian territory;

"b). British colonial officials thought that the preferred title, "Kingdom" would offend republican sensibilities in the U.S.;

"c). The Premier of New Brunswick liked the biblical overtones."
I must ask here ... Soulscanner is your first language English?
a). Do you understand that "Dominion" is different than "dominion"?
b). Yes it would offend the USA.
c). Ummm err ... So what?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Simple Approach~~
It seems to me that this whole 'is Canada a dominion' thing can be solved quite simply: 1) We have to consider whether Canada here and now considers itself to be a dominion. And here we need to refer to parliamentary legislation. If Canada was constituted as a 'dominion', has that constitution been amended by legislation? If so, please cite that legislation. 2 Define what is meant by 'dominion'; this is a primary cause of dispute. Is 'Dominion' in a context proper to Canada alone, with a meaning of its own, or does the term refer to a broader context, ie., an autonomous constituent of the British Empire.I would strongly suggest that it cannot refer to the latter, for the BE no longer exists.
So, has the initial title of Canada been changed by legislation, and is 'dominion' proper to Canada?--Gazzster 08:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The initial title, though disused, has not been changed by legislation. Numerous reputable sources indicate the legitimacy and currency of 'dominion' as Canada's title; e.g.,
"Dominion" entry in Canadian Encyclopedia: "The word came to be applied to the federal government and Parliament, and under the Constitution Act, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title."

How Canadians Govern Themselves, a primer published by the federal government, pp. 8-9: "The two small points on which our constitution is not entirely homemade are, first, the legal title of our country, “Dominion,”..."
Quizimodo 16:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2) The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines 'dominion' as (2004, p. 443, sense 3):
~~the title of each of the self-governing territories of the Commonwealth.~~
Quizimodo 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite that dominion is still part of Canada's title, then of course the article can remain edited to reflect that. As to the second part, a dictionary is not a political and cultural authority. In fact, it is weak argument to refer to a dictionary at all. The Commonwealth in fact does not have any 'self-governing territories',as if the Commonwealth were an umbrella authority. The Commonwealth is made up of 'self-governing territories', several of which are republics. These could hardly be called 'dominions'. And as the discourse between Armchair and myself revealed, the Commonwealth of Australia (and other Commonwealth realms) no longer use the title 'dominion', if ever they did (and in the case of Australia, it most certainly did not) . The British government stopped using the term in 1948. So here I believe you are on shakier ground. --Gazzster 10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my second response was more for brevity (with the intent on expanding it) -- time is not in abundance. But, it goes to say that if the title is still current and part of the country's constitution, it is undoubtedly applicable. In opposition, can you provide reliable contemporary citations which significantly differ than the dicdef, or contradict it? A number have been provided above in support. Other territories may not use the title, but that does not nullify its legitimacy or its applicability in this particular/Canadian context, i.e., the sort of polity Canada became upon Confederation, not necessarily what it is ... which is explained in the following sentence (or, at least, the level of autonomy over time) and is somewhat applicable to its status upon Confederation. Quizimodo 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really been following what I'm saying. If you can cite that dominion is still part of Canada's title, then of course the article can remain edited to reflect that. So if you can, no arguments. As to the second point, an editor has yet to prove that the term 'dominion', taken in a wider context, is still used to describe the Commonwealth realms. --Gazzster 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's because this thread is a digression that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. We are not necessarily talking about the term taken in a wider context -- in THIS (largely historical) context for the lead, usage of the term is appropriate: in 1867 upon Confederation, Canada became a self-governing dominion, the first, of the British Empire. Also, see below about the currency and correctness of this assertion, as currently worded in the lead. Anyhow, any additional context regarding the notion is in the linked article.

As for the applicability of the term 'dominion': yes, it has largely been replaced by 'Commonwealth realm' -- but, to flip the matter, the latter term wasn't in use in 1867, either. Again, this entire discussion is about the use and inclusion of the term in the proper context. Relatedly, it may be prudent to further clarify notions regarding the transition from empire to commonwealth and increased autonomy over time, as they apply to Canada, in the next (5th) sentence.

Moreover, you request 'no arguments' regarding the first point -- nothing would please me more. I presume then that your concerns regarding this (previously: "'Dominion' may be part of Canada's official title. I don't know.") have been allayed? Because, if they have been, then that establishes the foundation for its need in the lead in the first place. And, if they have not been, something else is at play. Quizimodo 02:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Putting the argument to rest once and for all~~
In any modern encyclopedia, atlas, or other reference book, Canada is simply reffered to as "Canada". The title "Dominion of Canada" was dropped decades ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the debate is mostly about whether to use the word "dominion" when talking about the founding of the country, at which time the term was in use. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and (for example) please consult the introduction for the entry for 'Canada' in the CIA World Factbook. Quizimodo 14:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA article is a perfect example of why use of dominion in a short summary about Canada is a problem. The CIA article is silent on the changes that have occurred since 1867, and one can be forgiven for getting the impression from that CIA article that Canada is still a dominion subject to the UK. As for our article, just mentioning dominion in the lede raises the question whether Canada is still a dominion - and our lede is also completely silent on that (and any lede must be so on that issue, since it is too complex an issue for a lede). Canada is clearly NOT a dominion in the same sense that it was one in 1867, for it is no longer a dominion of the UK. Canada is clearly now a realm & the monarch's title no longer claims Canada as one of her dominions. IF Canada is also still a dominion, it is one in title only (mostly, in my opinion, since nobody has tackled officially changing it). Including dominion in the lede is not INaccurate with regard to past history, but its information value for a reader unfamilar with the term does not justify including it. Canada's actual status within the UK did not change with Confederation - on 2 July 1867 it was still a mostly self-governing colony of the UK - except the term colony was substituted out. What changed in 1867 was that 3 BNA colonies united into a federation of 4 provinces, with the expectation of more provinces to come. The only reason I can think of that people want to include dominion in the lede is that they like the term for one reason or another. Personally, I do not like using terms about Canada that would suggest (rightly or wrongly) to many people that it is not an independent country. But encyclopedia should not be about personal likes & dislikes, they should be about being informative & not needlessly confusing the reader.--JimWae 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What changed on 1 July 1867? From the UK point of view, where they had 3 colonies to administer, they now had one colony/dominion to administer. From the Canadian point of view, they now had an extra level of gov't - federal & provincial. --JimWae 06:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, I'm not an expert on Canadian affairs, so I will let other minds discuss how the word 'dominion' is used in Canadian history. I can however speak to how 'dominion' was used to describe former dependencies of Great Britain which are now either Commonwealth realms or republics. In my opinion JimWae drops peals of wisdom when he says:
As for our article, just mentioning dominion in the lede raises the question whether Canada is still a dominion - and our lede is also completely silent on that (and any lede must be so on that issue, since it is too complex an issue for a lede). Canada is clearly NOT a dominion in the same sense that it was one in 1867, for it is no longer a dominion of the UK. Canada is clearly now a realm & the monarch's title no longer claims Canada as one of her dominions. IF Canada is also still a dominion, it is one in title only (mostly, in my opinion, since nobody has tackled officially changing it). Including dominion in the lede is not INaccurate with regard to past history, but its information value for a reader unfamilar with the term does not justify including it.
Here JimWae touches on a very pertinent point, one which I have been trying to express. Here it is more eloquently put. From what I have been gleaning from the contribution of editors, Canada was founded as a dominion, yes. But what is meant by dominion? Was it a term placed in a specific context for Canada in 1867? If not, does it have the same meaning as the term 'dominion' (which was never constitutionally defined by Great Britain or its colonies) used some 30 or so years later to describe autonomous constituents of the British Empire? Here lies the ambiguity. If Canada was constituted a 'dominion' (as it seems to have been), does it remain so, especially as 'dominion' is almost always interpreted as a paternalistic, outdated, colonial term? The former dominions of Australia and New Zealand do not use the term (if ever they did officially). Can we say that Canada also rightly objects to the term? To sum up: yes, Canada was constituted a 'dominion', but even though no legislation may have overturned the title (I don't know) can we still call Canada a dominion?
Can I also add that I am enjoying this discussion. Only in Wikipedia could we get down to such nuances and depths. Great stuff!--Gazzster 08:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::Dominion title should not be in the lead paragraph, it should be in the historical sections though IMHO. I'm no constitutional expert, but I do recall in my school history classes of long ago, Canada chose the title Dominion of Canada in 1867. At some point in the 20th century, the Dominon title was dropped (how & when exactly? I don't know). How the Dominion vs dominion got started? Is (to me) a larger mystery and headache. Ya know, its pointed out to me once, that Canada (today) is actually a kingdom (but that's another headache). GoodDay 15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Gazzster/JimWae: thank you, I think this is well put. As some have tried to express here, it is precisely this ambiguity that is the problem: in the lead only, I repeat. Despite the bombardment of references to 1867, it is a) not clear what a dominion actually means (see references by Canadian PMs); b) not clear that it can be said that Canada is still named a dominion (despite all the lawyering references to documents, surely if that was the country's official name the Canadian government would use it?); c) clear that there are connotations of dependence which are at least debatable; and, (d) clear that the meaning has changed over the years, and the context makes the current meaning unclear. Whether or not any definitive answer can be given on any of these points, the word should not figure in the lead if any question remains.--Gregalton 15:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am perennially perplexed by the popular -- and rather unsourced -- opining above regarding the title and its appropriateness in the lead. If a source such as the CIA Factbook opts to describe that Canada became a 'self-governing dominion in 1867': that is all that is required. Of course, this isn't the only instance of such sourcing. (Actually, the example was provided to counter Cashcleaner's erroneous comments.) Instead, we have an assemblage of editors who, for various/whatever reasons, have opted to cast it from the lead and snowball to support this action. It is curious that JW's wisdom is being lauded -- but upon being asked repeatedly on the the talk page for 'Canada's name' for references to support his refactoring or deprecation of content, JW did not, and has not, provided a single reference to support it. Then, as now, said assertions are just that.

Let's use an analogy. In this context, 'Confederation' is used to describe the initial act of union in 1867 and subsequent incorporation of provinces. Barring the case of Nunavut, Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949 ... around the same time as Canada's status as a Dominion was beginning to be refactored. Thus, both may be equally ... moribund. Numerous references also allude to this, yet I do not see any attempts to mollify infidels by suppressing that term -- particularly given its meaning in a wider context. (Yes, Gazzster, this is directed primarily at you.)

So, "can we say that Canada also rightly objects to the term 'dominion'?". No: many Canadians may deprecate the term ... but Canada (the entity) does not, since the title is retained in the constitution. And, can we "'still call Canada a dominion'" (whatever that means)? Yes: it is not invalid in this context just because a clutch of commentators object, have yielded to disbelief, or use its nuanced meaning as a reason to deprecate it and conflate confusion. And to those who point to the apparent flux in its meaning, this is shared among many words, including 'Canada' itself ... which is duly explained/expanded in pipe-linked articles as needed.

Some believe the title has been 'dropped': please cite this. And those who continue to insist that 'I don't know' regarding whether the title has been overturned, despite these citations, are simply and willfully ignorant. A number of references, both here and at 'Canada's name', are available that directly counter this perspective.

(BTW, yes, New Zealand did use the term, and was -- and occasionally is -- applied to Australia [20] [21])

So, in summary, popular sentiment does not obviate equitable, verifiable source matter. I'm all for intriguing discussion, but it appears largely for not what and a hyper-reaction to ill-informed editing. It seems ironic that one would invoke that an 'encyclopedia should not be about personal likes & dislikes' and original assessments about content (which is true), while boldly demonstrating the opposite herein. Given the above, the burden of evidence falls on those who opt to exclude, not the reverse -- to date, no one has satisfactorily demonstrated the inequity of the current lead. In addition, a number of variants have been proposed, with little to no comment. If there is no conciliation regarding this point, this will be a rather lengthy exercise. Quizimodo 22:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with Dominion (yes, capital D) being in the article. But, why is it so important to have it in the lead paragraph of the article? The opening paragraph should deal with Canada's current status, which is a Commonwealth realm not a Dominion. GoodDay 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entire debate/morass deals with the 4th sentence in the 2nd paragraph (not the 'opening one'), which describes the polity that Canada became upon Confederation in 1867. The initial sentence of the article introduces the topic, and later paragraphs/sentences in the lead (should) expand further about its status in the appropriate context. It is described in the constitution as "one Dominion [federally united] under the name of Canada", and nothing else. So, to flip your question: why is it so important to belie the importance of this cited fact by excluding it from the lead? Quizimodo 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well then (excuse my earlier misunderstanding of the discussion) facts belong in Wikipedia. GoodDay 22:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP. :) Quizimodo 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quizmodo, I have to acknowledge that you went to the trouble to find references to Australia as a dominion, and I might even have to acknowledge that some individuals or organisations may still refer to the Commonwealth as such. Certainly the author of the review of the book referred to [22]]. But the second reference [23]) is talking about Australia in the past. And before 1953, true, it was called a domininion. It was however never part of its official title (Constitution of Australia). I would still argue that 'dominion' is not used in reference to Australia in any meaningful way nowadays. You are right, New Zealand called itself a dominion after being granted that status by Britain. However, in 1946 the prime minister of NZ gave instructions to his government to drop the term from official documentation (Dominion of New Zealand).This was done because even in 1946, the term carried paternalistic overtones. From the accession of Elizabeth II the term was dropped entirely for the former dependencies of Great Britain. The term 'realm' was used instead and continues to be used. This is an example of a term becoming obsolete and irrelevant, not by abrogation, but by disuse. Some of us are simply suggesting that this may be the case for Canada. If I may suggest, without intending to be personal, that to say a country remains a dominion, simply because the document of constitution has not been amended or abolished, is excessively legalistic. Surely this encyclopedia does not merely reflect the points and dots of the law, but also the common understanding of minds and hearts concerning a particular topic. The present status of Canada (and other former dominions) has to be taken in historical context. I might refer you to an article of the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (27,2): The Strange Death of Dominion Status, by D. Macintyre. This work is available online. If this academic is to be credited, the title alone gives you an indication of the present state of the term 'dominion.' In this article, Macintyre explains that 'dominion' was a loosely defined term to describe states between a colony and an independent state. It was never intended to have permanent status. Those countries were given dominion status precisely because it was intended they be sovereign states in the future. Now the former dominions are independent realms, and so, the word no longer has any meaning for them. As to your points about the word 'confederation': that does not concern me. I don't know enough about that. I am concerned about how the word dominion is treated.--Gazzster 04:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Canadian GDP per capita~~
The Wikipedia entry for 'Canada' lists GDP per capita at $32,614 and adjusted for PPP at $35,600. The Wikipedia entry for 'List of Canadian provinces and territorries by gross domestic product' lists different figures. The figure here at PPP is $44,118. This is a huge difference. Which is correct? Perhaps, neither? I can see the nominal figure for Canada being $44,118 because of the rapid increase in the value of the Canadian dollar and the figure at PPP being perhaps around $40,000.
The current listings just don't make sense though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.40.223 (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~A modest proposal~~
An attempt to satisfy the monarchists here who wish to see the word "dominion" in the lead while not muddying up the clarity and simplicity of the introductory paragraphs.
I believe it is a mistake to call Canada a dominion in the lead since it is difficult to define and controversial. However, it is nearly incontrovertible that it was entitled a Dominion in 1867, whatever, if anything, that meant. Following that logic, I have drafted the following final two sentences of paragraph two:
In 1867, Confederation united three colonies in federation to form the Dominion of Canada and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America. The 1867 Act granted general powers of self-government and increasing independence was achieved in successive Acts, culminating in the Canada Act 1982, which severed the final vestige of dependence on the British parliament. And remove the words "A federation" from the beginning of paragraph three.
DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle; what does this discussion have to do with monarchist sentiment? Is it not more about accuracy, succinctness, and contextual legitimacy?

Regardless, I don't see much of an issue with your proposal, but would like to see others' comments. --G2bambino 21:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about In 1867, Canada was founded when three colonies united to form a semi-autonomous federation and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America. then? DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The syntax is rather contorted -- there is no advantage to this proposal. Why are we attempting to jump through artificial hoops when a succinct and accurate edition is already in place?

Anyhow, a variant of what I proposed earlier (with links):
In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous polity within the British Empire.

or replace 'polity' with 'state', and/or 'semi-autonomous' with 'self-governing', and/or 'British Empire' with 'United Kingdom' or under the 'Crown of the United Kingdom'. Otherwise, I agree with G2 and prefer the current edition. Quizimodo 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-autonomous? You are missing the point completely. Please stop trying to judge the independence of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, Irish Free State, India, and Pakistan from a Republican point-of-view, for that is what you are doing.
The Dominions are (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) or were (Newfoundland, South Africa, Irish Free State, India, and Pakistan) independent countries that chose to have as their figure Head-of-State the Constitutional-Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..
The "independence" angle is constantly harped on by people that don't like the fact that we are a Dominion. That is what we were founded as in 1867, and that is what we are today ... a Dominion!
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep saying this? Especially as you have already conceded that Australia has never called itself a dominion. The British government does not use the term dominion to refer to former dependencies of Great Britain. Why do you continue to insist that they remain dominions. If they are called anything it is Commonwealth realm. If Canada is still a dominion (I don't know), fine. But don't try to paint other Commonwealth realms with the same brush. Really, insisting on 'dominion' is not only wrong but insulting. And we do not 'choose' our head of state: she is a hereditary monarch, and the peoples of her realms have no say as to whether her son will succeed or not.--Gazzster 11:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don, you misunderstand me. The proposal says in 1867, it was semi-autonomous and that now, it is completely independent. It doesn't say that Canada is or is not a Dominion now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Quite right, and therein lies part of the value of this proposal. --G2bambino 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Actually, it may not be 'completely' independent. For example, when Mulroney stacked the Senate to pass the GST in 1990, he sought the consent of the Queen to do so. Whether this was a courtesy or a requirement is uncertain, but I presume the latter since it represented a significant change to a pillar of Parliament. Quizimodo 20:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canada's independence is indisputable; Mulroney, as per the Constitution Act, 1867, sought the approval of the Queen of Canada for the addition of extra seats to the Senate, not the Queen of the United Kingdom. This personal union arrangement between the two countries has been in place since at least 1931, but most definitely since 1982. --G2bambino 21:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks for clarifying that. :) Quizimodo 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Hello DoubleBlue. The British North America Act 1867 states explictly in Clause 3 that Canada is a Dominion. The BNA Act 1867 is contained (the legal term is consolidated into) within the Canada Act 1982 and has NOT been repealed. Thus Clause 3 of the BNA Act 1867 is still in force and Canada is still a Dominion (back in 1867 and today in 2007).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~AVD, for once I agree with you and that scares me. :-O Somewhere up above on this giant talk page I said a similar thing. :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Hello DoubleBlue. LOL! Thanks eh.
Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, the current phrasing arguably also fulfills this: Canada became a d/Dominion upon Confederation in 1867, but is mum about what it is now ... which is elaborated upon in the next sentence/paragraph. Quizimodo 15:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will oppose any wording that says "Canada became a dominion" in the lead since the term is not meaningful and is contentious in that context. I would prefer to leave the word "dominion" entirely to later sections but, if others are intransigent about having the word in the introduction, I will accept entitling Canada with the Dominion of Canada phrase. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above; a proposed variant links to it. Anyhow, your rationale is perplexing, given that 'd/Dominion' is mentioned in the 1867 act four times, yet 'Dominion of Canada' is not mentioned at all. Quizimodo 15:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Did we ever get any real opinions on the use of the direct text from the Constitution Act, 1867? I don't see any response to your proposals above, Quiz, besides mine. --G2bambino 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't think there was any extra commentary and, given the excessive cross-talk and myopic fixation herein, is unsurprising. Quizimodo 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

The allegation has been made here several times that those suggesting the word dominion not be used in the lead are proponents of republicanism (and suffering from a myopic fixation, no less) and/or being opponents of monarchism. Since this entire discussion of dominion in the lead has not once (to my awareness) involved ever suggesting removing "Canada is ...a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state", the allegation appears baseless. Surely if one was actually trying to erase suggestions of monarchism from this article, one would start with the sentence containing the (factual) statement that Canada is a monarchy?--Gregalton 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, wait a sec; I'm a staunch republican who happens to support the usage of Dominion in this article. ~~It could be used in the lead, in a historical way. ~~We republicans aren't all suffering from MF. GoodDay 21:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)~~~~[reply]

Not really. If there is no dispute about the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, there shouldn't be any dispute about the fact of Canada becoming a dominion upon Confederation, either -- the two are somewhat connected. Many other things throughout this discussion have proved more baseless than accusations of republicanism or monarchism (which, from the onset, has been insinuated quite handily). Quizimodo 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canada did indeed become a dominion upon Confederation, that's a fact and nobody can retroactively change that. GoodDay 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I support this version,~~
~~In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[24] was formed.~~
I am having trouble understanding peoples objections to the Dominion word. It is a historical fact ... why do people hate it so much and want to suppress it?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am thoroughly fed-up with this non-sense. Canada was founded in 1867 as a Dominion. Then the Canada Act 1982 came along, and Canada is still a Dominion. I wash my hands of this whole debate. This talk page epitomises what I hate about Wikipedia ... consensus of the Ignorant-Mob running amok.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustrations AVD; when you have numerous editors involved, there's bound to be conflicts from the biggest things to the smallest. You have to take the bad with the good. Those who are against Dominion are just as frustrated with us. GoodDay 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~And there speaks the voice of enquiry and understanding. Good on ya, GoodDay.--Gazzster 04:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Resolution~~
~~Okay, so after a couple of weeks without discussion, have we come to the conclusion that the following wording is acceptable for the fourth sentence of the second paragraph?:~~
Upon Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were "federally united into One Dominion (under the Crown of the United Kingdom)." --G2bambino 15:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's seems to be the accepted version by all. GoodDay 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, guess I spoke too soon. GoodDay 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, any information value that the word dominion adds is negligible compared to the misunderstandings it engenders. It is completely unnecessary in the lede. Canadian & other gov'ts have retreated from its use, and it has informational value only where its full context can be explicated --JimWae 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No We really should be able to write a succinct sentence in the lede without resorting to a quote. If there is consensus to include dominion there - and I don't see that - there's got to be a better way to do it. - Eron ^Talk 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, then you'd better all work on something as consise, explanatory, and verified. --G2bambino 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried. Look further up the page. Consensus on this seems... elusive. - Eron ^Talk 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept any of:
In 1867, Canada was founded when three colonies united to form a semi-autonomous federation and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America.

In 1867, Confederation united three British North America colonies to form Canada.

In 1867, Canada was founded when Confederation united three British North American colonies to form a federation.

In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada.

In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada.

In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada began a gradual process of autonomy from the United Kingdom.

In 1867, Confederation united Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a federation, with each becoming a province.

DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why's Dominion such a dirty word? GoodDay 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. Very few editors - and, unless I'm mistaken, none of the editors who said "no" above - object to Dominion being used in the body of the article. We are - or at least I am - objecting to its use in the lede. I explained my position on this several times; it's all buried in the tens of thousands of words spilled on this topic further up the page. I haven't commented recently, because I felt I was getting nowhere in reaching a workable compromise. That, and because I didn't quite see the point in continuing when the position I supported was distorted by accusations of creeping republicanism and straw-man arguments - like the notion that opposition to dominion in the lede equals opposition to dominion everywhere. - Eron ^Talk 00:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever said 'republicans' were against using 'Dominion' in the lead, are wrong. I'm a republican and I support 'Dominion' in the lead. GoodDay 01:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does adding Dominion to the lead improve the article? Without sufficient context and explanation, it is not well-understood and can be misleading. That context and explanation is suited for later sections and other articles. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Referring to 'dominion' in quotations makes it clear that the term is to be understood in a context specific to Canada in 1867. Small syntactical objection: it is unecessary to put 'under the United Kingdom' in parentheses. And yes, the whole monarchist vs republican thing is irrelevant, and I don't see any evidence of that in our exchanges.--Gazzster 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see a bit of evidence of that. (I'm not saying that I see the discussion in those terms; quite the opposite. GoodDay is a republican who supports Dominion in the lead; I am not a republican, and I oppose it. But it has been characterized that way.)

Fundamentally, here is what I see as the problem: pages and pages of discussion over one word in one sentence of the lead. That is prima facie evidence that the term is controversial and should, perhaps, be avoided in the lede. - Eron ^Talk 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For 'evidence', it is curious how you glazed over the lengthy arguments of the originator of this morass before highlighting a truism that is based on observance of argumentum ad populum herein. Quizimodo 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me to simply be a demonstration of some strongly held personal hang-ups over one particular word. If anything, we really shouldn't capitulate to emotional reaction. --G2bambino 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see some recognition of that. Understanding your own personal biases is key to writing NPOV. I also like the Dominion title and think it should not be abandoned but I understand it is only a title and does not belong in the introduction of the Wikipedia article. Can we agree then to say the three colonies united in a federation without requiring the "Dominion" title. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; others could learn from my example. "Federation" alone is insufficient. --G2bambino 15:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I heard you say before that federation alone is insufficient but I don't understand why not nor how adding the word "dominion" makes it sufficient. The sentence in question says that colonies joined together in 1867. The very next sentence (though in need of improvement) discusses the degree of independence. The following paragraph concerns the state of Canada now. I like the title "Dominion" but, without the context and explanation not suitable for the introduction, it does not serve any useful purpose in the sentence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue factor - I'm sorta wundering about that aswell. Is all these discussions & disputings over one word in one sentence worth the time and space they've consumed? GoodDay 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, we could spend too long on this and perhaps already have. But surely we're touching on important issues. And one single word can carry great weight. I disagree that our discussion reflects 'personal hang-ups' on the part of certain editors. On the contrary, I have seen sound argument that suggests that the use of the word 'dominion' in this article (and others) needs defining. I notice that (in my opinion) some editors have an altogether outdated understanding of the term. We could of course raise the dread word 'arbitration' and wait for the collective groan. But I think it's best to avoid arb if we can.--Gazzster 15:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No: it should not be in the lead, for reasons stated clearly above many times - a word with this ambiguous meaning should not be in the lead. It can, and does, figure TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER. With appropriate context.

I apologise for the all caps. Fatigue factor. I am also tired of the monarchist / republican nonsense (that is an entirely separate issue, as some have recognised, where opinions do not 100% coincide either way). The "personal hang-up" comment (about others, of course, not about oneself) seems to be a clear statement that some are not actually listening to the points made here.--Gregalton 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some arguments appear sound, but they've been either decidedly defeated by superior counter-arguments, or nullified by an equally valid counter-point. (The unwillingness of others to acknowledge this is a clear statement that some are not actually listening to all the points being made.) It is thus revealed to us that the "controversy" around the word, which is where this whole debate started, is purely manufactured, and seemingly driven by personal beliefs (corroborating evidence elsewhere, pertaining to the editor who initiated this dispute, supports this theory). Regardless, what proposals do we have for describing the federation Canada became, without, of course, using the word "Dominion"? I suspect we'll have to sacrifice brevity. --G2bambino 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...aaand this is why I dropped out of the discussion the first time. What you are saying, in effect, is "We are right, you are wrong, and your unwillingness to accept that shows just how wrong you are." Hardly fertile ground for compromise. As to what proposals we have, look just a bit further up in this section to DoubleBlue's post of 23:44, 26 October 2007. Of the ones listed, I like number 4. (It sounds strangely familiar...) - Eron ^Talk 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, ironically, it works both ways. So, if the pragmatic arguments of each side essentially cancel the others out, doesn't that leave us with no better "anti-Dominion" argument than "I don't like the word" and "pro-Dominion" argument than "there's nothing wrong with it"? Doesn't that mean the conflict is actually being fueled by personal feelings as opposed to legitimate concern for composition and clarity? If so, then I agree with you: hardly fertile ground for compromise, and hence, none has been proposed. --G2bambino 15:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, again, I largely agree with you here except that I, personally, like the word but believe it doesn't belong in the introduction and that there is a long page here of proposed compromises. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there can be a compromise in this situation; the word "dominion" is either in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph, or it isn't. It can't be partly there. There are other ways to describe the federation Canada became in 1867, but I don't think any are, or will be, as succinct as "federal dominion." Hopefully the list of proposals below will be narrowed down until we achieve some resolution. --G2bambino 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~What meaning do you find conveyed in the word "dominion" that is missing without it? DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's commonly accepted as a distinct type of polity within the British Empire; Canada was the first of these. We can replace "Dominion" with a description of what a "Dominion" was, but, of course, that's less concise. Regardless, we've been through these arguments before. --G2bambino 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(In response to G2Bambino): I would have thought that what is a 'superior counter argument' is itself based on a personal assessment. And personal judgements are the very thing you are objecting to. And 'an equally valid counter-point' supposes, does it not, that the original objection is 'valid'? So where's the personal argument there? The 'controversey' is 'purely manufactured'? On the contrary, I have seen intelligent reasoned argument. Intelligent reasonable editors do not produce argument ex nihilo. Supporting what Eron has said, if anyone is resorting to subjective argument, it appears to be you.--Gazzster 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~See my above comments in response to Eron. --G2bambino 15:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
"Controversy" around the word: some editors have pointed out the meaning of the word and the nature of the status of dominion are not clear, and hence it should be carried later in the article - two paragraphs later. The nature and title of this paper ("The Development and Significance of Dominion Status") at a conference specifically dedicated to the issue of dominion-hood belies the claim that the controversy is manufactured solely by editors here.

My point above was that claiming personal beliefs is causing others to misunderstand is evidence that one is not listening. And it's rude. ("You can't understand? Must be because your personal belief system is warping your ability to comprehend my argument, which is right.")--Gregalton 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Christ-sake ... Dominion is pretty plain. Dominion is a country within the British Commonwealth that is a Constitutional-Monarchy, in Personal Union with the UK. That is what it meant in 1867, what it meant in 1982, and today in 2007. People like JimWae are just being willfully stupid. The meaning of Dominion was never unclear ... people like JimWae just hate "Dominion" as all.
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I would really hope we could discuss this as reasonable people without resorting to personal attacks. No one here is being "wilfully stupid"; we have different points of view. Disagree if you wish, but at least show some respect for the opinions of others. I'm tired of being called an "ignorant mob". - Eron ^Talk 02:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a 1-week recess is in order, allowing everyone to calm down & regroup? GoodDay 15:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Quizimodo 19:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dominion not clear~~
Oh dear, Armchair. Personal attack is the lowest form of argument. In fact, it is a poor substitute for good argument. It doesn't do your case any good at all. JimWae and 'people like JimWae' used reasoned intelligent, respectful arguments to illustrate his points. You, on the other hand appear to find it difficult to respond in like manner. In fact, 'dominion' is not pretty clear at all. Dominion is a country within the British Commonwealth that is a Constitutional-Monarchy, in Personal Union with the UK. 1) There is no such thing as the 'British Commonwealth', it is simply 'the Commonwealth', and the UK is not its head; 2) the constitutional monarchies in personal union under Elizabeth II are now called realms, and have been since her accession; 3)the UK government and Buckingham Palace have ceased using the term dominion since 1948, as myself and others have pointed out repeatedly. If there's a statement which appears 'ignorant', it's this one.--Gazzster 04:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hello Gazzster. Point-in-fact, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is legally defined as a Unitary Kingdom. There are 4 Sub-national Members namely,~~
Kingdom of England (lead by a King),
Principality of Wales (lead by a Prince),
Kingdom of Scotland (lead by a King),
Province of Northern Ireland (possessing a Governor)
~~and it is NOT a Realm.~~
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

Why you are dividing the United Kingdom and going on about unitary kingdoms (ignoring, by the way, the points I made) I cannot tell. But here is the title of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom: ' N., by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen (etc)'. The Kingdoms of Scotland and England no longer exist. The Crowns are united into a single crown. That is why it is a 'United' Kingdom. After the invasion of Wales that country was never actually ruled by a Prince. The sovereign of Wales was the King of England; the title Prince of Wales is purely titular.--Gazzster 01:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, did the 'Fathers of Confederation' have disputes like this over Dominion? Could we be (sorta) repeating history? GoodDay 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Other among the suggestions were "Kingdom of Canada" and "United Provinces of Canada". Lexicon (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as they reached a compromise in 1867, we should adopt that compromise for this article. GoodDay 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The United Provinces of Canada has always been my favourite (as it compares to the United States of America).~~
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the compromise, the Founding Fathers reached. GoodDay 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yaa, I know. The Dominion of Canada is a very good long-form name of this country. I have always liked it. However, I am an English-Canadian (i.e., and English-Speaking Canadian). The objection to this name primarily comes from the French-Canadians (i.e., French-Speaking Canadians) and the Roman-Catholic Irish Republicans. They collectively hate the term Dominion.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArmchairVexillologistDon: If you cannot participate in this discussion without mischaracterizing and prejudging those who disagree with you, perhaps you should not participate at all. I find that your conduct is pushing the bounds of civility. I would appreciate it if you would confine your comments to the topic of discussion and refrain from speculating on the motives, ethnicity, and political and religious affiliations of the other parties. Thank you. - Eron ^Talk 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Eron.
English-Canadians typically do not have a problem with the term Dominion.
French-Canadians typically do have a problem with the term Dominion.
The Roman Catholic Irish are usually Republican in their sentiment.

What specifically do you have a "problem with" in these observations?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is a 'typical Canadian'? A 'typical French Canadian'? I think the stereotype may exist in your own imagination. And why do you suppose that contributors on this page who diagree with your arguments must be 'typical French Canadians' or 'Roman Catholic Irish'? Because they disagree with what you believe is the 'English Canadian' perspective? What sort of circular logic is that? What kind of 'observations' are these? And what kind of wholesale pigeon-holing is that?--Gazzster 04:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hello Gazzster :) I am grateful for your thoughtful reply, and I wish to assure that I meant to disrespect to you. Frankly I like interacting with you very much. Now down to brass-tacks!~~
The Commonwealth of Australia has only ONE OFFICAL LANGUAGE, namely the English Language. However, the Dominion of Canada (unfortunately) has TWO OFFICAL LANGUAGES, the English Language, and the French Language. The Native-Peoples (the third group) are linguistically divided between English-Canada, and French-Canada. That is simply is ... "the way it is".
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
My problem with your observations, Don, is that you are presuming to know someone's political views based on their ethnicity, and their ethnicity based on their political views. There are words for that sort of thinking. You also seem to be fixated on some image of Canada that has little in common with the country as it exists today. While the old French-English divide is still present, the Catholic-Protestant divide is irrelevant. And you seem unaware of the many Canadians who don't fit into your neat categories. What it the Sikh perspective on Dominion? Are Haitian-Canadians monarchist, or republican? What do the Jews think of all this? It's all irrelevant. - Eron ^Talk 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Eron. I am not responsible for your "likes or dislikes". We are all free to the believe what we wish, and express it within the rules of conduct of Wikipedia . If you feel that I am violating them (e.g., your vailed suggestion that I am a racist), then file a complaint and don't minse-words.
~~ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
The rules of conduct of Wikipedia include the statement "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." In your defence of the term dominion, you seem to be poisoning the well, suggesting that those who oppose its use in the lede do so because they "collectively hate the term". You go on to assign those in opposition to certain categories, based solely on this position. I find this conduct offensive, I don't think it contributes to the discussion, and I would appreciate it if you would stop doing it. - Eron ^Talk 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm a British/French/Irish/Afro etc Canadian, baptised a Catholic (though I'm an atheist), who happens to support usage of Dominion in the lead. What category do I fit into? Anyways, let's drop this mini-discussion, it has no place here. GoodDay 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GoodDay. What category to you "fit" into? Well what is your first language? What is the language that you think in? The primary organising principle in Canada is linguistic (unfortunately). If your first language is English, then you are an English-Speaking Canadian (i.e., an English-Canadian) and you are of English-Canada. If your first language is French, then you are an French-Speaking Canadian (i.e., an French-Canadian) and you are of French-Canada (additionally the Native-Peoples are divided between these "Two-Solitudes" ).
Take care, and best wishes eh ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Responding at your personal talk page. PS- let's end this 'off the topic' discussion. GoodDay 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Okkie-Dokkie ... loud and clear :)
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Don, I guess you would agree that this controversy has not been purely manufactured by the editors of this page? --JimWae 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please Jim, direct your comments at Don's personal page. It's best this 'off the topic' discussion, discontinue here. GoodDay 22:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Lead proposals~~
Template:RFChist Template:RFClang
So that they're collected in one place and can be discussed individually:
To be fair, I'm including all set out above, and in the order in which they were proposed. Forgive me if I've missed any, and/or please add more if thought of. Hopefully, via a process of elimination, we can decide on one that is acceptable. --G2bambino 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1
~~In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federation with dominion status.~~
Weak support I could approve of this proposal. --G2bambino 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support -- Padraic 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2
~~In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federal dominion.~~
Weak support I could approve of this proposal. --G2bambino 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3
~~In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become the federal Dominion of Canada.~~
Support as this single sentence nicely describecs the flow of events and their result; pre-existent BNA colonies, unification through Confederation, federal Dominion named Canada. --G2bambino 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice, neat and descriptive. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per above. Quizimodo 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4
~~In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada began a gradual process of autonomy from the United Kingdom.~~
Oppose I find this proposal somewhat vague for the reason that it explains nothing about the main aspect of confederation: the formation of a federation and the attainment of a new status within the Empire. Further, on principal, if "Dominion" is too confusing and nuanced for readers, then "Confederation" should be considered as such as well. --G2bambino 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my favourite either. I agree that the word Confederation is misleading. I think it was only used here since that was the name given to the process of uniting BNA and so I could live with it but would rather it was not used. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I concur. Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5
~~In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a self-governing dominion.~~
Weak oppose, since 'self-governing dominion' may be a tautology. Replace 'dominion' with 'polity of the United Kingdom'? Quizimodo 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anything, I would change "self-governing Dominion" to "self-governing polity of the British Empire." However, there again, we're just spelling out in long form what a Dominion was. --G2bambino 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True: however, it would read and appear (i.e. be linked) as "... self-governing polity of the British Empire" (or similar) -- thereby mollifying those who oppose including the term (for whatever reason), while perhaps satisfying those who believe it necessary to highlight in the introduction. Quizimodo 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6
~~In 1867, Canada was founded when Confederation united three British North American colonies to form a federation.~~
Oppose I don't support this proposal as a) it's unclear as to what kind of federation Canada became, and b) Canada was not founded in 1867. --G2bambino 16:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I concur. Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7
~~In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada.~~
Oppose Vague and rather imprecise. Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too vague. --G2bambino 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8
~~In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[25] was formed.~~
Support I like this one, seems descriptive enough for me. GoodDay 16:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per above. Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This works, but I might suggest it be rearranged to say: In 1867, the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation formed a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[26].

Support Using "dominion" in a quote makes it a littler clearer that this term is not in common usage. --Padraic 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9
~~Upon Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were "federally united into One Dominion (under the Crown of the United Kingdom)".[27]~~
Support I like this one too, again descriptive enough for me. GoodDay 16:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. As well, with the reference to it being a constituent of the UK, it sets up (or should) the next sentence regarding the country's ongoing growth and autonomy after Confederation. Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10
~~Upon Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were "federally united into One Dominion" of the British Empire(/United Kingdom) named Canada.[28]~~
Support per above. I prefer this one mildly to #8 because it is more descriptive. As well, with the reference to it being a constituent of the UK, it sets up (or should) the next sentence regarding the country's ongoing growth and autonomy after Confederation. Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11
~~In 1867, Confederation united three colonies in federation to form the Dominion of Canada and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America.~~
This proposal has merit in that it adds the relevant point about Confederation being the beginning of the unification of the remainder of BNA, while also including the key facts of federation and Dominion status. --G2bambino 17:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather leave "Dominion" out of the introduction but, if forced, would grudgingly accept it in this form using "Dominion" as a title and clearly stating it happened in 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose syntactically challenged, given other options. Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You find number 11 syntactically-challenged but 8, 9, and 10 are fine? I see it the opposite way. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, #11 unclearly incorporates two important but rather independent notions -- the entity created in 1867 AND the process towards full independence -- into one sentence, whereas the current edition and #8-10 deal with them separately (and IMO better). In this instance, if given the option between including cited text (from the constitution, no less) and not, I choose the former. Quizimodo 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I formed #11 to avoid talking about the autonomy, which I agree belongs in another sentence. This version only speaks of the uniting of BNA colonies. The reason, I thought, you and G2bambino were desiring the "dominion" word was to speak of the degree of autonomy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat -- to be clearer: I believe notions regarding the country's founding in 1867 AND the growth and autonomy of the country can be stated more clearly in separate sentences, as is now the case. And this proposed sentence is rather imprecise: the process of uniting BNA colonies began well before 1867 -- its their union into a federal dominion that began in 1867. Quizimodo 18:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12
~~In 1867, Canada was founded when three colonies united to form a semi-autonomous federation and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America.~~
Oppose As per my comment above, this proposal equally leaves the reader unsure as to what type of federation Canada became, and potentially misleads him or her into believing there was no such thing as "Canada" before 1867. --G2bambino 16:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What type of federation did it become? And don't say dominion. I added semi-autonomous to the word federation because that's what I thought you were looking for. I'd rather leave the autonomy issue to the following sentence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One with greater self-governing abilities (militia, internal affairs, external affairs (to an extent), etc.) than the other colonies of the British Empire; more akin to a country than previously, though still subordinate to an imperial government. Semi-autonomous does cover this, but Canada had a certain, increasing amount of self-autonomy from the early 1800s right up to 1982. 1867 was merely a step in that scale of self-autonomy, not the beginninig of it, as far as I know. --G2bambino 18:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I would like to put that in the following sentence A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom moved Canada towards statehood and culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament, which I dislike, and leave this sentence as uniting colonies into a new federation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence is fine, but it could be attached to any of the proposals set out here. --G2bambino 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13
~~In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada.~~
Oppose I believe this is the most vague and misleading of the proposals: Canada was not "formed," per say, and this does not hint at what it turned into. --G2bambino 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14
~~In 1867, Confederation united Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a federation, with each becoming a province.~~
Oppose Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too vague --G2bambino 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15
~~In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federal "kingdom in its own right."[29]~~
Oppose Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16
~~In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a monarchical federation.~~
Oppose Quizimodo 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17
~~In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a parliamentary federation.~~
Oppose, as the notion of parliamentarianism is already noted in the 3rd paragraph. Quizimodo 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Restore link to Sports in Canada~~

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

~~Main articles: Culture of Canada and Sports in Canada~~
~~It used to be there, and without it, there is no link to this 2nd tier sub-article (sports are not included in the Culture of Canada article). Thanks, heqs ·:. 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I support this request. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to Sport in Canada and National symbols of Canada. It appears someone had tried to create separate sections for Sport and Symbols, but those sections were later deleted, and links were not restored to the culture section. Mindmatrix 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks, although I don't think the link to the symbols article is needed, as it's one of the sub-topics covered in the culture article. heqs ·:. 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I've disabled the editprotected request here because it appears to be fulfilled. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~Royal Anthem~~
The Royal Anthem for all member states of the Common Wealth and the National Anthem for the United Kingdom Is "God Save the King" and not "God save the Queen" as stated.
The name of the Anthem, contrary to popular opinion does not change as the gender of the Monarch of the Common Wealth of Nations does. Sammy Jay 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof of this? GoodDay 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information from 10 Downing street official website states the name of the Anthem as "God Save the King" [30]. Sammy Jay 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, during E2's reign, people have been singing the anthem wrong? GoodDay 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that means. The name of the Anthem has no bearing on the words sung in it. As the gender of the Monarch changes the words in the song switched between "King" during times of a male Monarch and "Queen" during times of a female Monarch. During HRH Queen Elizabeth 2's reign the name of the anthem has remained "God Save the King" although the word King has been changed to Queen in the "lyrics". I do hope no one has been singing the anthem wrong. Sammy Jay 00:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just being silly. GoodDay 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We still need a definitive source for this (I'm dubious about taking the word of someone who refers the the Queen as "HRH Queen Elizabeth 2"). --G2bambino 15:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a definitive source supporting the statement that Canada's Royal Anthem is "God Save the Queen". I'm not sure that it is relevant to this article what the name of the Royal Anthem of the United Kingdom is. (Just as, by analogy, the Monarchy in Canada is headed by the Queen of Canada; apparently she has other titles in other places, but they are not relevant to this article.) - Eron ^Talk 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I pointed out that link somewhere else; this royal anthem discussion seems to be going on simultaneously on a number of pages, though I think it's gelling at Talk:God Save the Queen. --G2bambino 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not all realms have this "Royal anthem"~~
~~The fore-mentioned statement is not true actually.~~
It is true that Queen Elizabeth is a monarch of many "crowns". E.g. she's pretty much like a executive board member that serves on several different executive boards. In that case, for example a judgement or ruling in one realm really doesn't have any weight automatically in any other realms. So based on that, those crowns in theory do not spill over from one realm to the next.
Example: In Barbados she is styled "The Queen of Barbados". In Canada she isn't styled the "Queen of Barbados" and the "Queen of Canada" as far as Canada's recognition-- she is just styled "The Queen of Canada". The fact of the matter is the Canadian monarch or "crown" has the provision for a "Royal Anthem" as outlined as being one of the "Symbols of Canada" (here 1, here 2) but not all Commonwealth realms have a "Royal Anthem." as part of their monarch's role, duties and provisions.
For example. Canada's [guidelines and practice] it is understood that "God Save The Queen" be played in her(or heirs) presence(or GG). (quote) (here) Playing of "God Save The Queen" at events
"God Save The Queen" has no legal status in Canada, although it is considered as the royal anthem, to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors. (/end quote)
Barbados' and Saint Lucia's [guidelines and practice] state's even in her presence or the G.G.'s presence the Barbados or Saint Lucian anthems will still be played instead.
(http://www.barbados.gov.bb/bdoscodeitq.htm here 1) (quote) B. THE NATIONAL ANTHEM The National Anthem shall be played -
(a) for the purposes of a salute on ceremonial or official occasions, on the arrival and departure of
~~(i) the Governor General. (ii) the Sovereign or a member of the Royal family, (iii) a foreign Sovereign, Head of State or member of a reigning foreign~~
~~imperial or Royal Family,~~
~~(iv) Governors-General of Independent Commonwealth countries. (v) Governors of the Associated States, and (vi) Governors, High Commissioners of Officers administering the Government~~
of a dependent territory within the Commonwealth
(b) at the beginning of all public performances in a cinema house.
3. The National Anthem may be played (a) at the completion of any public function, or (b) when toasts are proposed at official functions.
4. The National Anthem should not be parodied in verse or in song neither should it be played in any tempo other than that officially recognises (eighty-eight crochets to the minute). Particularly, the tune should not be used as a dance number or for the purposes of advertisement. 5. When more than one anthem is played the Barbados anthem should be played last. (/end quote)
(http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/saint_lucia/national_anthem/national_anthem_of_saint_lucia.htm here 2) (quote) Protocol for the National Anthem
1. Whenever the National Anthem is played, all civilians present should stand at attention, men with bared heads. Uniformed persons should act in accordance with instructions. 2. All three verses of the National Anthem will be sung. Normally one verse will be played. It shall consist of the first twelve bars of the anthem unless otherwise stated. 3. The National Anthem shall be played:- a. for the purposes of a salute on ceremonial or official occasions, on arrival and departure of: i. the Governor-General ii. the Sovereign or a member of the Royal Family iii. a foreign Sovereign, Head of State, or member of a reigning foreign Imperial or Royal Family iv. Governor-General of Independent Commonwealth countries v. Governors of the OECS States vi. Governors, High Commissioners or Officers administering the Government of a dependent territory within the commonwealth,
~~and~~
~~b. at the beginning of all public performances in a cinema house or other public building. 4.~~
~~The National Anthem may be played:-~~
a. at the completion of any public function, or b. when toasts are proposed at official functions 5. The National Anthem should not be parodied in verse or in song, neither should it be played in any tempo other than that officially recognised. In particular, the tune should not be used as a dance number or for the purposes of advertisement. 6. When more than one anthem is played, the Saint Lucia anthem should be played last.
(/end quote)
Further see rules covering the Canadian national anthem. It has been assumed this "Royal anthem" stands in all countries but not all countries play a "Royal anthem" some may play the British national anthem as when any diplomat visits but it doesn't seem she or her heirs or representative are given special treatment in the form of a "Royal Anthem". CaribDigita 01:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks, although the issue of the name of the Anthem still remains, "God Save the King" is the official name. [31]~~
Sammy Jay 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the name of the Royal Anthem of the United Kingdom. However, this suggests that the name of the Royal Anthem of Canada is "God Save the Queen". - Eron ^Talk 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think common sense should prevail, and should (god forbid) Her Majesty ever discontinue her service as our Sovereign Lady, the Royal Anthem's name should be modified according to the gender of her successor. I think this issue about the name of the anthem has arisen before on God Save the Queen. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Anthem at any particular time is entitled as to the reigning monarch. Right now, that is God Save the Queen. In 1936, it was God Save the King. When referring to the anthem over all time, it is God Save the King, since that is the more common gender. The article should be entitled as it is used now and changed if, God forbid, it is necessary to do so. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~A minor change~~
I'd do this myself, but considering it's protected, that's not exactly possible. Anyways, the population density in the infobox and the population density under the headline Geography and climate differ. Please correct this. --Super Martyo Brother 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Canada's relative geographic size~~
The article mentions Canada as the second largest (in land area) to Russia. As "Russia" has been broken up into several smaller soviet nations, would that not make us the largest?
Musesshadow 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~No, Canada was smaller than the ex-USSR, which broke up. The largest resulting nation is Russia, which is still way larger than Canada.--Ramdrake 12:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~See List of countries and outlying territories by total area for the details. - Eron ^Talk 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

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

[2] Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ^ⓘ

[cia_factbook-3] Central Intelligence Agency (2006-05-16). "The World Factbook: Canada". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2007-05-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[4] Andrew Heard (2007-10-14). "Canadian Independence". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

[5] Eugene Foresey (2007-10-14). "How Canadians Govern Themselves"". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

[6] F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law. 38 (1): 34–49.

[7] F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law. 38 (1): 34–49.

[8] F. R. Scott (January 1944). "The End of Dominion Status". The American Journal of International Law. 38 (1): 34–49.

[9] ttp://www.mch.govt.nz/dominion/mcintyre.html The Development and Significance of Dominion Status, Speech for Dominion Status Symposium

[10] ttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300(194401)38:1%3C34:TEODS%3E2.0.CO;2-B The End of Dominion Status, F. R. Scott, in the American Journal of International Law."

[11] ttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/primeministers/stories/rb-20020126.html Brian Mulroney, "He stood for us", Globe and Mail.

[12] Hillmer, Norman. "Commonwealth" (html). Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Project. Retrieved 2007-10-09. With CONFEDERATION in 1867, Canada became the first federation in the British Empire ... {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[13] "Territorial evolution" (html/pdf). Atlas of Canada. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved 2007-10-09. In 1867, the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are united in a federal state, the Dominion of Canada....

[14] "Canada: History" (html/pdf). Country Profiles. Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 2007-10-09. The British North America Act of 1867 brought together four British colonies ... in one federal Dominion under the name of Canada.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 883: / Line 883: @@
 :Some of the issues around Quebec and separatism are briefly discussed in this article, with wikilinks to the appropriate main articles. Remember that this is a summary article on Canada as a whole; it should not go into detail on any subject. - [[User:EronMain|Eron]] <sup>[[User Talk:EronMain|Talk]]</sup> 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-:By the way, Quebec and the Quebecois beeing the 2nd biggest province of Canada is far from being a minority itself. Specifically the french community is a minority of canada and that includes the french speakers outside quebec. Besides that, beeing in the younger 30 years old age group, you have to know that we dont want in the future, right for self determination, thoses were our father and grand-fathers. It's now clearly becoming the older generation against us... and since we are replacing more and more political positions... well, I really expect this subject to be part of history, maybe it was fitting at the time, but since then things have got better anyway and Quebec is actually doing very good right now --[[User:Slamcool|Slamcool]] 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
+:By the way, Quebec and the Quebecois beeing the 2nd biggest province of Canada is far from being a minority itself. Specifically the french community is a minority of canada and that includes the french speakers outside quebec. Besides that, beeing in the younger 30 years old age group, you have to know that we dont want in the future, right for self determination, thoses were our father and grand-fathers. It's now clearly becoming the older generation against us... and since we are replacing more and more political positions... well, I really expect this subject to be part of history, maybe it was fitting at the time, but since then things have got better anyway and Quebec is actually doing very good right now and overall, I'm a Quebecois that thinks proudly that we bring something special of our own and that combined with everyone else in the country, all together making what Canada is... Quebec is the root of Canada where everything started and every Canadians from the early settlers, french or english, are historically or genealogically connected to quebec at some point. Actually, it's so out of context that I don't even know or remember why this came up in the past...     --[[User:Slamcool|Slamcool]] 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 == Canada lies in Arctica? ==

v t e WikiProject Council
WikiProject guides	WikiProject Council Talk Guidelines/Intro WikiProjects Task forces Technical notes Assessment FAQ Work via WikiProjects
Directories and summaries	Directory Proposals Deletion Signpost Shortcuts Popular pages Database reports Watchers
Culture and the arts	Arts Music Performing Plastic Visual Broadcasting Crafts and hobbies Entertainment Games and toys Food and drink Internet culture Language and literature Biography Linguistics Media Philosophy and religion Sports
Geographical	Bodies of water Cities Countries Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Landforms Maps Parks, conservation areas and historical sites
History and society	History and society Business and economics Education Military and warfare Politics and government Transportation
Science, technology and engineering	Science Biology Chemistry Economics Geosciences Information science Mathematics Medicine Meteorology Physics Space Technology Time
Wikipedia assistance and tasks	Contents systems Maintenance Files Article improvement and grading Classroom projects WikiProjects

v t e Wikipedia help pages
*Visit the Teahouse* or the Help desk for an interactive Q & A forum. FAQs (?) Reference desks (?) Noticeboards (?) Cheatsheet (?) Directories (?)**
About Wikipedia (?)	Administration Purpose Principles Policies and guidelines What Wikipedia is not Disclaimer (parental advice) Making requests Who writes Wikipedia?
Help for readers (?)	FAQ Books Copyright Glossary Mobile access Navigation Other languages Searching Students Viewing media
Contributing to Wikipedia (?)	Advice for young editors Avoiding common mistakes Etiquette Simplified Manual of Style Simplified rule-set "Ignore all rules" "The rules are principles" Style-tips Tip of the day Your first article (article wizard)
Getting started (?)	Why create an account? Introductions by topic Graphics tutorials Picture tutorial IRC (live chat) tutorial VisualEditor user guide
Dos and don'ts (?)	Accessibility Biographies Biographies (living) Categorization Consensus Discussions Disambiguation Images Leads Links Lists References Tables Titles (of articles)
How-to pages and information pages (?)	Appealing blocks Article deletion Categories Citations/references Referencing for beginners Citation Style 1 Cite errors References and page numbers Convert Diff Editing Minor edit toolbar edit conflict Find sources Files Footnotes Image deletion Infoboxes Linking (link color) Logging in Merging Page name Renaming pages Redirect Passwords Email confirmation Reverting Simple vandalism cleanup Talk pages (archiving simple archiving) User contributions WP search protocol
Coding (?)	Wiki markup Barcharts Calculations Characters Columns Elevation Hidden text HTML Lists Magic words Music symbols Sections Sounds Tables Templates Transclusion URL Visual files
Directories (?)	Abbreviations Contents (Encyclopedia proper) Departments Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Guidelines Manual of Style Policies Tasks Tips Tools
Missing Manual Ask for help on your talk page (?)

Revision as of 13:41, 2 November 2007

What's new?

To do list

Scope

Navigation

Categories

Subpages

Formatting

Goals

Structure and guidelines

Main polities

Lead section

Opening paragraphs

First sentence

Detail, duplication and tangible information

Infobox

Lead map

Sections

Size

Hatnote

Charts

Galleries

Footers

Transclusions

Lists of countries

Resources

Sisterlinks

Related WikiProjects

Popular pages

Notes

The country name

Table: Temperatures of Canadian Cities

Vimy Ridge territory footnote

Canada's political parties

long list of navbars

The lead once again

Main Page request

Dominion in the lead

"Dominion of Canada" in lead

Lead-edit of 15 August 2007

"Federal" in the first paragraph? (discussion moved down the page)

Request for comment: Is the Governor General's residence an official residence of the monarch?

Demographics

North Pole claim

Cultural Perspective

Kingdom of Canada?

Main Page request (one more time)

Errors or inaccuracies

Size of Louisiana

"Federal" in the first paragraph?

Summary to Aug 26

Comments:

Renewed discussion on lead (as reverted to Aug 8 version)

Opening paragraph geographic-only ?

Comments

Tadoussac

Jacques Cartier

Louis Riel and the metis of the prairies

Canada's foundation

Basque Whalers [2]

Changes to lead

Lede seem too dull?

Justifying lead edits

Personal union

Reverted lead to consensus version

Give the lead wider attention

"Pronounciation"

Quebec dispute

Canada lies in Arctica?

Subsections

Poll: Should Canada be refered to as a Dominon in lead?

Lede or Lead?

Poll: July 1, 1867 in the lead

Use of word 'dominion' in lead compromises neutrality of article

Proposal for the lead

Arbitrary break

What is the Capital of Canada? Ottawa? Or the NCR?

Discuss issue at Dominion and Canada's name articles

Dominion is "neutral" ... is it not?

Why so-called dominion status was meaningless in 1867, and is equally meaningless now.