Talk:Dominion

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by .

Virginia - Old Dominion

shouldn't Virginia be on here? it was declared a dominion by Charles II, long before the page says the term came into usage in relation with Canada.

Removed section about Dominion Resources

I have removed the section about "Dominion Resources" because it does not apply to the subject of this article. Ajax-and-Achilles (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of dominion before 1907

The source says:

“... the Dominions (a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members)”

I contend this passage (which, by the way, is not written in stone) does not necessarily imply that Canada was semi-autonomous in 1867. IF its author intended that, he could just as easily (and more simply) have written "a term applied from 1867 to 1948 to describe the empire's self-governing members". There were NO other dominions established from 1867 to 1907, so the interpretation more apparent to me is that he just did not want to repeat the reference to Canada. (Btw, it could even be interpreted to mean that Canada was never one of the empire's self-governing members).

Its author did not write "a term applied from 1867 to 1948 to describe the empire's self-governing members". That interpretation is only 1 of 3 possible interpretations & it is not for a wikipedian to choose which of the 3. It is, however, quite clear to me that the author intended to separate the 1867-1907 usage from the 1907-1948 usage. If you do not see that as clearly as I do, it must be admitted that such is at least a valid interpretation of the source & as such it cannot be overlooked by article editors.

Furthermore, the designation of Canada as a dominion in 1867 had absolutely nothing to do with autonomy. In 1867, Canada's autonomy was in no way different from that of any colony with its own responsible government. Canada in 1867 was not in any way more autonomous than the 3 colonies that it replaced. In 1867, becoming a dominion had nothing to do with autonomy. Not until 1907 did the dominion designation imply a heightened degree of autonomy. For the article to suggest otherwise is misleading.

Thus

A dominion, often Dominion,[1] was a term originally used as a designation for some of the colonies within the British Empire, and came to be used from 1907 to 1948 to refer to some partially autonomous polities within that Empire and members of the British Commonwealth.

is less misleading regarding autonomy than

A dominion, often Dominion,[1] referred to a partially autonomous polity within the British Empire and British Commonwealth between 1867 and 1948.

The former takes no position on the autonomy of Canada from 1867-1907.

--JimWae (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC) ---[reply]

More likely than not, perhaps the distinction/clause is made because this article is from a Canadian encyclopedia, and therefore highlights the topic of note. Otherwise, I find nothing in your argument that is more or less compelling than beforehand, which defers to one interpretation of the reference as much (even more so, since you maintain it despite) as others. Even the reference from Heard indicates: "When the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 it was granted powers of self-government to deal with all internal matters..." while pointing out overall subservience to Britain. Also, if you wish to contend that Canada was never one of the empire's self-governing members, then of course you will have to demonstrate that. Good luck. As well, one other author in the least made this same edit, [1] so arguably it isn't a solitary interpretation of the reference. Thus, the current introduction shall stand until you can demonstrate otherwise. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHALL? are you royalty? I think you should read my entry above again. From all I wrote above, you choose to focus on the parenthetical remark? --JimWae (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your riposte thoroughly, and responded as needed. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland date

The article stated incorrectly that Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1948. I changed it to it's correct 1949 date. --Bentonia School (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India and "responsible government"

I'm no expert on India's complex constitutional history under British rule, but it most certainly did not have responsible government in 1909! 81.135.187.41 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Head Of Indian State

It is clearly mentoned in the indian constitution that the head of the indian state is the president and not the british monarch.--Lordharrypotter (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]