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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
You say "drove at least one newspaper out of business". Does the source say which one?
The sentence "Says Finkel, finding fault with both sides of the Aberhart-press feud," needs to have "stated" or "wrote" or something with a colon, if it is the sources of the quote below.
Some small copyediting. (fixed)
"Ultra vires" needs to be wikilinked. (fixed)
To small matters, and the article will pass as good. Nice work so far :) Arsenikk(talk) 14:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and copyedits. Unfortunately, the source does not name the newspaper, so there's not much I can do there; I think there's value in stating that one was driven out of business, even if we don't know which one, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. On the Finkel quote point, can you explain why this is necessary? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'd just like some explanation of why you're right. Sorry for being a cantankerous fart. Steve Smith (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've read the sentence a dozen times, and I cannot see how it creates a transition between the "finding" and the quote. Or to put it this way: I cannot see how the sentence says that Says Finkel says the quote.
Oh, okay; I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that a colon was required, which doesn't seem right to me, when it's just that my writing was unclear. "Says Finkel, finding fault with both sides of the Aberhart-press feud," is an inversion of "Finkel says, finding fault with both sides of the Aberhart-press feud" or, more likely, "Finkel, finding fault with both sides of the Aberhart-press feud, says". It is a little cutesie, though, so I'll go ahead and change it to something more straightforward. Steve Smith (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Good, then we are agreed, and I will pass the article. As always from you, nice work, and if I must say, a rather scary article. I honestly though no-one could dream up introducing such censorship in a "free" country. Arsenikk(talk) 16:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If this never became law, why is it an Act rather than a Bill? jnestorius(talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
When bills are drafted, they're given names that include the word "act", notwithstanding that they're not actually acts until passed by the Queen in Parliament. Consider a Wikipedia article about a movie that was never made: if it needed to be disambiguated it would probably be done with "(film)", and over the course of the article it would likely be referred to as "the movie", even though it really doesn't become a movie until there are actual actors and camerafolk involved. Steve Smith (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As well as the title of the article and the name of its subject, there are various references through the text to "the Act" or "the act" rather than "the Bill". If it is the custom in Canada to refer to Bills as Acts, this should be stated and clarified, because it may be confusing for those of us from the UK and Ireland, where this is definitely not the practice.
See for example this article from today's Irish Times about the Civil Partnership Bill, named as such and referred to as "the Bill" in the course of the report. The legislature's webpage on the Bill does likewise. The various drafts begin: "CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL 2009 / BILL entitled AN ACT TO ... 1.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Civil Partnership Act 2009...." In other words, although the Bill refers to itself internally as an Act, externally it is referred to as a Bill.
It is true that in the English language, the concepts "completed movie" and "unproduced movie" are both subsumed into the word "movie"; but it is not (necessarily) the case that "act passed into law" and "bill proposed" are both subsumed into "act".
Well, the alternative would be calling it Bill 9, which doesn't seem very helpful. As for calling it "the Act" as shorthand, that just follows from the page title. Steve Smith (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't. You could start
The Accurate News and Information Act was a Bill ....
and then continue "the bill"... jnestorius(talk) 12:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)