Talk:Canada/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Recent changes to second paragraph of the lead

As i am sure many have noticed I have a problem with the recent changes to the lead. I will outline my concerns below after versions being disputed are quoted.

1. Version before any major changes (stable for sometime)

Canada has been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the 16th century, British and French claims were made on the area, with the colony of Canada first being established by the French in 1537. As a consequence of various conflicts, the United Kingdom gained and lost territories within British North America until it was left, in the late 18th century, with what mostly geographically comprises Canada today. Pursuant to the British North America Act, on July 1, 1867, the colonies of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia joined to form the semi-autonomous federal Dominion of Canada. This began an accretion of provinces and territories to the mostly self-governing Dominion to the present ten provinces and three territories forming modern Canada.

1. Recent additions (with sources added)

link to change- The lands now covered by Canada have been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples. Although various European nations began to explore and colonize parts of North America as early as the 11th century, Canada itself was first disovered and named by French explorer Jacques Cartier in 1534 and officially claimed in a ceremony on 24 July of that year, taking possession of the "countries of Canada" in the name of King Francis I. This point marked the official establishment of French Canada and what "would become the cradle of New France". As a consequence of various conflicts, the majority of New France (of which Canada was a part) was ceded to the British Empire in 1763. Following this, the British gained and lost territories within British North America until it was left, in the late 18th century, with what mostly geographically comprises Canada today. Pursuant to the British North America Act, on July 1, 1867, the British colonies of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia joined together to form a new federal colony known as the "Dominion of Canada". This began an accretion of provinces and territories to the mostly self-governing Dominion to the present ten provinces and three territories forming modern Canada.

1. Version I tried to implement (non consensus version - just me trying to fit in the editors wishes)

link to change - The land now called Canada has been inhabited for millennia by various Aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the 15th century, British and French expeditions explored, and later settled the Atlantic coast, with the first establishment of a region called "Canada" occurring in 1534. As a consequence of various conflicts, the majority of New France was ceded to the British Empire in 1763. Subsequently, the United Kingdom gained and lost territories within British North America until it was left, in the late 18th century, with what mostly geographically comprises Canada today. Pursuant to the British North America Act, on July 1, 1867, the colonies of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia joined together to form a federal Dominion under the name "Canada". This began an accretion of provinces and territories to the mostly self-governing Dominion to the present ten provinces and three territories forming modern Canada.

1. What we say in the article proper

In 1534, French explorer Jacques Cartier explored the Saint Lawrence River, where, on July 24, he planted a 10-metre (33 ft) cross bearing the words "Long Live the King of France" and took possession of the territory of known as Canada, New France in the name of King Francis I. In general the settlements appear to have been short-lived, possibly due to the similarity of outputs producible in Scandinavia and northern Canada and the problems of navigating trade routes at that time.

First would like to say not disputing the overall facts just the placement of content and the wording of that content. To put this simply i dont see the need to be so detailed in the lead when we says some facts almost word for word in the article. Nor do I believe we need many sources for the same thing in the lead because its already sourced in the article - causes clutter and is not needed...as per WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:Citing sources. I also think its undue weight to name Jacques Cartier and King Francis in the lead....as we dont even mention our fathers of confederation nor the PM nor Champlain. I also dont like the wording used in the recent changes for a lead like "taking possession of the countries of Canada" or "claimed in a ceremony". Was it a country or a colony or just a name of a region in 1534? this source used for the changes ....clearly say "Nevertheless New France was officially founded around 1604 to 1608 by Intendant Samuel de Champlain and Pierre Dugua de Mons. W. I dont dispute the date 1534..... but terms like founded or country is not cut and dry for Canada so should be left to the article to explain in detail.....as it does. Was planting a cross an event normally called a "ceremony". Also think removal of mention to British colonization during this period does not relect the facts or article content. Overall I dont see the changes as an improvement to the lead, -- Moxy (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The new wording ties itself in knots with this 1534 viewpoint (also being pushed on History of Canada and Territorial evolution of Canada). It makes no sense to change the initial Canada to "The lands now covered by Canada", while also adding "Canada itself was first disovered". It reads correctly only with the implicit understanding of the theory being discussed on this talkpage, and this is not something we can presume of our readers. Your points on weight and WP:LEAD are also salient. CMD (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to discussing native history, and Europe’s role in the destruction in it. But that is a different article. Just as Germany is a different article than all the regions that went into what is today Germany. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The beginning date should be when the legal entity came into being (1867). Modern Canada combines several formerly dependent states: the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Prince Edward Island, Prince Rupert's Land, British Columbia and Newfoundland. Some of these territories were themselves combinations of dependent states. All these territories were at one time considered by England to be parts of the colonies of Massachusetts or Virginia or both. TFD (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree save for the fact that the new Dominion was also a dependent state, ie verifiably a British colony inline with the sources above. And as you say yourself above WRT independence beginning in 1919.

As policy states that the lead section should be a standalone summary (ie should be able to be read on its own and still provide the reader with an overview of the article topic). As such, I see no problem with providing a succinct overview of the article inline with policy. What exactly is the line between "succinct overview" vice "clutter" is of course subject to editor opinion and preference.

As a result, I see no problem in mentioning aboriginal occupation/relations, the establishment of French Canada/New France in 1532 (obviously not a permanent settlement, but the official ceremony marks the official and legal claims by France and is widely mentioned in nearly every history of Canada published), the ceding of most of New France to Great British, of which Canada was a part (and Louisiana was not as it was ceded separately to the Spanish), the formation of the Canadas (domestic governance of Canadians own local affairs), the formation of the United Province of Canada (start of Canadian representative government with the "Legislative Assembly of Canada" in which debates on Canadian Confederation were led by such renowned Canadians such as Sir John A. Macdonald), Canadian Confederation (the start of the modern Canadian federal structure, and the first geographic expansion beyond what was known as Canada from 1534 to 1867), the Statute of Westminster (Canadian equality with the UK), and the Constitution Act 1982 (full independence).

Obviously what I put in parenthesis above I am not advocating spelling out in the lead (only my reasoning behind it). In this way, however we end up formulating it results in a clear and succinct summary of the formation of Canada as already explained in more detail in the main article. I see this being beneficial as Wiki Policy states that the lead section should do exactly this, provide a standalone summary of the article. What we are talking about here is a few sentences, which I find hard to see as undue "clutter" as it forms an essential part of the article's topic as reflected in the current main body. trackratte (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I simply don't see how a lead that regurgitates almost word for word the article about two people who have had very little effect on what Canada is today is helpful to our readers ..read up on Cartier....he was not seen in a good light....he's no Champlain as history records. Basically what is being pushed here and in other articles by minor word changes and over emphasis on the date and people of 1530s is that Canada a "country" was founded in 1534. This is simply not how historians view this fact. In fact they divide up our history before confederation and after..... See....Martin Brook Taylor; Doug Owram (1994). Canadian History: Beginnings to Confederation. University of Toronto Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-8020-6826-2..--Moxy (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1. I am not proposing a lead that "regurgitates almost word for word the article" or else it would be several pages long. I am advocating for a concise summary of key events, ie a few sentences outlining Canada's formation in this case.

2. No one has ever said nor inserted the fact that Cartier was seen in a good light into the main space, we do not have to include his name, that is an editorial decision. It is the event that is important, not necessarily the person.

3. Nor has the word "country" ever been inserted into the main space in relation to the establishment of "Canada as a country in the 1530s", and as far as I'm aware no one has proposed this.

4. The history section of this article is divided up into five sections, 1) aboriginal "prehistory", 2) European actions in Canada from the moment it was discovered, named, and claimed in 1534 up until 1867. 3) Confederation up until just before the beginnings of 'Canadian independence' in the First World War, 4) First World War to Second World War, 5) Second World War to present.

The lead should reflect this in such a way as the lead section summary is able to 'stand on its own' without reading the main article at all in accordance with Wiki Policy (ie the summary of the formation of Canada to the present day as reflected in the history section). In this way, as Walter G notes, it is important to note the 'aboriginal prehistory', the first official 'naming and claiming' of Canada (a region which was continuously known as or covered by "Canada" in some form from this moment in 1534 until the present), the passing from French to British hands, the political and geographic evolution from this point (domestic government, representative government, democratic government/federal structure/geo expansion beyond what "Canada" had meant from 1534 to 1867), Canadian equality with the UK, and full Canadian sovereignty. On my computer, this just took three lines to outline the entire history section of the main article. I see no reason why it should not be incorporated into the lead in a succinct way inline with policy trackratte (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead does all you metion....only thing you are adding is the names of two people who had little to do with Canada as a whole. Canada itself was first disovered and named by French explorer Jacques Cartier in 1534 and officially claimed in a ceremony on 24 July of that year, taking possession of the "countries of Canada" in the name of King Francis I. You have still not explained why the king of France needs to be in the lead....he's not more important then let's say sir John A. You keep talking about Canadian political evolution....I have no clue what this has to do with the edit we are talking about...the addition does not help in the undetstanding of what your talking about. The sentence is also a bit misleading or can be confusing as what are now parts of Canada were discovered before Cartier.....in fact New France was named prior to his voyages and was not settled for nearly a century later. ...in fact other parts of what in now Canada were settled first. The current wording is clear. Search founder of New France or Canada. See what you get....tell me then if you think the king of France from 1534 should be in the lead about this modern country called Canada. -Moxy (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What we should metion....not in the lead is that New France was always under the direct control of France.....as the English-speaking colonies had some autonomy. Moxy (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't know why you are entirely hung up on people's names, that was never the issue and is a simple editorial discussion. If you think it could be clearer then you were always free to edit it. The issue is what I've outlined above. trackratte (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC(

I tried to edit it many times. So now your fine with not adding the same line as the article (the one metioned above). Basically a waste of time for all involved. One tlak down 4 to go. --Moxy (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I never knew what the issue you had was as you just reverted everything wholesale instead of editing it. The lead as is currently is not a summary as it leaves out 300 years of history. trackratte (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

We can all see what took place and my different revision attempts including the example here. -- Moxy (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of Coat of arms of Canada.svg

New user here, can anyone give me a quick rundown as to why Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg can be used in other articles on the English language Wikipedia but not this one? Thanks in advance. -- XXx360noscopexXx (talk) 07:13, 05 February 2017 (UTC)

@XXx360noscopexXx: file:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg is a copyrighted work. It cannot be used in any article other than Arms of Canada and Monarchy of Canada where it has fair use claims. There is no fair use rationale for its use here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox... it was NOT "Establishment" and NOT from the "British Empire"

The British Empire was not an entity. The United Kingdom was and is.

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and modified versions of it are now domestic law within Australia and Canada;

Statute of Westminster 1931 ... gave Canada sovereignty from the United Kingdom. .... Passed on 11 December 1931, the act,[2] either immediately or upon ratification, effectively both established the legislative independence of the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire from the United Kingdom

The infobox stated Sovereignty (from the United Kingdom). Why did someone revise that to Establishment from the British Empire ? And how was citation #5 (added when the change was made) suitable? It is from another encyclopedia.

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean the Statute of Westminster is now domestic law within Canada? It's an act of the UK Parliament that has always been binding on Canada but since 1982 may be amended by a constitutional amendment, just as the 1867 Act can be. TFD (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Establishment vs independence

'Establishment' from the United Kingdom doesn't denote Canada's full and complete independence from the British. The article even mentions Canada's 'independence' in other sections. The federating of Australia's states was almost identical to Canadian Confederation, and yet Australia is mentioned as having become 'independent' whereas Canada is given the dubious distinction of having been 'established' (whatever that means — Bermuda was 'established' by the British and is not independent). This wording should be addressed. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:A83B:68C3:14AF:B31E (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's clear to the rest of us. Canada slowly gained its independence, but it's not a big deal for Canada either. We didn't revolt against the crown the way the Americans did. For them, they have a day to celebrate their independence, ignoring the nearly 200 years that they were carried as a colony. Canada has worked toward its current state. The wording is clear and needs no amendments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think the wording is clear at all. Canada is independent, period. 'Establishment' doesn't denote that. Like I said, Australia's federating was almost identical to Canadian Confederation, so I don't know why you bring up the American Revolution. What does that have to do with being independent? Is it a uniquely Canadian trait (and perhaps indicative of an inferiority complex) to constantly compare to the United States? To be clear: I'm comparing Canadian Confederation to Australia's federating. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:74F7:8A05:8AD4:E821 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Using the word 'independent' doesn't imply a 'quick' independence (United States) or a slow one (Australia). Confederation (1867), the Statute of Westminster (1931) and patriation (1982) are all rightly mentioned and implied as having contributed, over time, to Canada's complete independence. But at the end of the day, and as things stand now, Canada is totally independent of the United Kingdom. The word 'establishment' doesn't signify this irrespective of your protestations to the contrary. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:C06E:1124:D93F:F030 (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. I am not interested in your proposed change. I'll let other editors comment as they wish. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic. I'm not interested in the word 'establishment'. Countries can become independent quickly or slowly. The point is: Canada is independent. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:CC47:BF56:7315:3E80 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

And as you note, this is covered in the article. Let's not look down on our readers by thinking a word that fits better to describe a process will make them blind to the rest of the text. CMD (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to anon: we get your point, and you've made it multiple times from multiple IPs, but you seem to be the only one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why my IP address keeps changing, but that's irrelevant. You seem to be the only one wedded to the confusing and vague term 'establishment'. Don't make this about what you personally want, that's not Wikipedia. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:C451:6BBF:2A04:83D8 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't find 'establishment' confusing at all, and it is explained in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is Canada given the distinction of having been 'established' whereas Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc are properly described as 'independent' (and all featured similar, gradual independence processes)? Is it because all the little Canadians think 'establishment' is a nice distinction from the 'independence' of the United States? Based on the initial reaction from Walter Görlitz, it would seem so. Just because a process is described in the article, doesn't mean 'establishment' shouldn't be changed to reflect an 'independent' reality. This is one of the most anti-intellectual arguments I've ever heard. It doesn't make any sense. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:E86C:278:9010:64C4 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in interacting with someone who is being condescending (all the little Canadians). You might want to read WP:AGF. I actually don't care a great deal either way, but there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to change it other than you don't like it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Utterly nonsensical. Why should someone have to read the entire article to gain an understanding of Canada's independence when the entries of all other former British colonies are properly described as 'independent'. There seems to be great resistance on the part of some Canadians to alter a word that has, for many years, dubiously described Canada's contemporary political reality. For the record, in 2002, Canada was accurately described as being 'independent'. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&diff=404195&oldid=403275 2600:8800:8002:7D00:9100:D5DA:FE0F:BD1B (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

In 2004, Canada was accurately described as being 'independent'. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&diff=8148063&oldid=8147912 2600:8800:8002:7D00:9100:D5DA:FE0F:BD1B (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You're not giving enough time for other editors to weigh in. This conversation IS NOT closed. I won't be silenced because some Canadian editor disagrees and feels it necessary to silence dissenting opinion. One of the editors above says he doesn't care about the wording either way, but more time is needed to give others a chance to contribute. Buckeye, Arizona huh? Interesting. Lol. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:958C:2423:9B74:35B1 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I prefer using the word "independence" over "establishment" in the infobox here as it's a little more clear and obvious. Air.light (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

We now have another editor who favours the term 'independence' over 'establishment'. We also have an editor who is indifferent to the wording, in addition to the editor who, of course, is vehemently opposed to any change. This conversation is NOT closed or finished. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:FD54:27B9:3108:8B29 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If you use the word Independence instead of Establishment it will be overly confusing to readers as they'll think it gained Independence in 1867, which was in fact it's establishment. Entitling that section Independence would be misleading. Additionally the use of the word Independence itself is easily misconstrued as there's been independence of certain things, sovereignty of other items at different times and there's still a common sovereign that serves to confuse things. Canterbury Tail talk 22:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. The section wouldn't say 'independence from the United Kingdom in 1867' as there are three key dates underneath that demonstrate Canada's progression to full independence (1867, 1931 & 1982). Further to this flawed line of thinking, readers of the Australia, New Zealand and South Africa pages don't seem to encounter the issues you feel might arise from properly labelling Canada as 'independent' of the United Kingdom. I could argue 'establishment from the United Kingdom' is extremely confusing because readers might think Canada was established (whatever that means—there are many definitions of 'establishment' and 'establish') 'from' the United Kingdom in 1867, and that is categorically incorrect. Canada only achieved self-government 1867, but it remained a colony under British legislative control until 1931. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:C8C4:241D:CC1B:113C (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Are we thinking of the same part of the article? The part I'm thinking of is in the infobox where it currently says "Establishment from the United Kingdom" and "establishment" links to the "Canadian confederation" article. To me, with the 4 events and dates listed below it, it seems to indicate that this was a process from the first date to the last one (1867–1999) rather than a single event, which seems to address aspects of your comment. When I see the word "establishment" I have to think about it for a moment and even then it's not 100% clear to me what the intended meaning is considering that I'm not a historian nor have I studied this extensively. If that word was replaced with "independence" I think it would be more obvious what is meant. It's not that "establishment" is a bad word for here, it's just that "independence" is a better one in my opinion. Air.light (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Air.light. We're talking about the infobox. I share your opinion that the confusing word 'establishment' should be changed to 'independence'. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:C8C4:241D:CC1B:113C (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP, please, never, ever, delete another user's comments. Just don't. I assume this [1] was a mistake. Anyway, here is what I wrote there ':I still see no compelling reason to change what we currently have. I also see what Canterbury Tail is saying and I think it is an important distinction. 'Independence' in Canada was a very gradual process.' Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It might be useful for everyone to take a look through the talk archives, this has been discussed before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Dbrodbeck. My apologies, it was a mistake. I think there was an editing conflict and your comment was mistakenly removed. I don't know why Canadians are hung up on the issue of Canada's 'gradual independence'. Relative to whom? The United States? Let's think globally for a moment—the US isn't the only country on Earth that warrants comparing and contrasting with. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all achieved a similarly gradual independence. Countries can become independent quickly or slowly. Likewise, countries can be 'established' quickly or slowly. I don't know why some feel 'independence' denotes rapid sovereignty and 'establishment' denotes slow or 'gradual' sovereignty. This is an utterly flawed (and confusing) way of approaching this. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:C8C4:241D:CC1B:113C (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

'Establishment' can also mean union, i.e. marriage. Modern Canada is certainly not in union with or 'married' to the United Kingdom. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:C8C4:241D:CC1B:113C (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"Establishment from the United Kingdom" clearly does not mean marriage or union. If we implemented your change, then the only date that would remain would be repatriation, because Confederation and the adoption of the Statute of Westminster still didn't make Canada fully independent because the UK could still amend our constitution. Obviously, not having Confederation in the infobox would be suboptimal (the equivalent of omitting July 4 from the infobox at United States because independence wasn't secured until the 1783 Treaty of Paris or until whenever the Constitution was ratified a few years after that), so your suggestion is a no-go. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet another comparison with the United States, good grief. The dates given in the info box don't suggest a single date of independence (or establishment for that matter). The dates are given (1867, 1931 & 1982) to demonstrate Canada's gradual, incremental 'independence' (not 'establishment') from the United Kingdom. I'd share your concern if the info box read 'Independence from the United Kingdom in 1867', but that's not what it says, and that's not what I'm advocating for. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:C8C4:241D:CC1B:113C (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Another problem with the word 'establishment' is that 'Canada' was established as a French colony well before 1867. The info box (as is) clearly implies 'independence'. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:C8C4:241D:CC1B:113C (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to get anon to stop talking so others could weigh-in. So the anon's examples were wrong anyhow. Canada was not independent in 1867. We could not decide which wars to enter or exit at that point. All of our laws were passed in the United Kingdom at that point. We had debates here, but no ability to pass laws. Not in 1931 either, as it could not pass its own budgets and the UK could amend our constitution. Some have argued that "independence" came slowly. First, we were permitted certain liberties by Westminster. And others would argue it happened in 1982 when we had our own constitution. But in all cases, it was an established independence, not fought for. And independent from what? We're economically tied to our southern neighbours.

Buckeye, Arizona has been wrong on so many counts I don't even know why we're bothering with this discussion. Canada did not exist when the French colonized the lower St. Laurence. And the reason we're making comparisons to the United States is obvious. Buckeye, if you don't stop using condescending language I'll arrange for an IP block: your entire ISP because that's how IPV6 works. And one more thing Buckey, stay off my talk page unless it's to apologize for warning me. You have been nothing but a nuisance here and warning me for anything is out-of-line. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, Surrey, I'm so afraid. What are you smoking in Surrey (or injecting)? I never once said Canada was independent in 1867—reread carefully. I've been nothing but a nuisance because I don't agree with you (and others don't either)? I object to your trying to silence debate (which is what is now happening here). You have no grounds to silence me, close this debate, or end the conversation. And if you do, I have no issue reporting you. The debate continues... 2600:8800:8002:7D00:156B:6721:8374:256B (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Canada did not exist when the French colonized the lower St. Lawrence (not 'Laurence')? What planet are you from, Surrey? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(New_France) 2600:8800:8002:7D00:156B:6721:8374:256B (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't make attacks on other editors. Also don't threaten other users with ruin or hacking if they legitimately remove comments from talk pages. None of these actions give any credence to your arguments and will just result in people completely ignoring you. If you have an argument to make, please make it civilly, don't comment on other editors or make threats. Canterbury Tail talk 02:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I respect people who respect me. There's no reason to remove any of my comments here, ok? Understand this and we'll get along just fine! 03:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC) 2600:8800:8002:7D00:E9EE:7E7:A902:F8CF (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The crux of my argument is as follows: 1. Canada is an independent country. America's independence happened suddenly, while Canada's independence happened gradually. The confusing word 'establishment' does not denote a gradual sovereignty. Likewise, the term 'independence' does not denote a sudden sovereignty. Colonies can be 'established' relatively quickly and become 'independent' relatively slowly. 2. Canada's gradual independence has more in common with Australia's, New Zealand's and South Africa's than it does with the United States'. This is a fact. Therefore, there's no need to compare Canada's independence to the United States' because the two events are completely unrelated and dissimilar (apples cannot be compared to oranges simply because both are fruit). 3. As it stands now, the info box describes Canada's incremental, gradual 'independence' from the United Kingdom (1867, 1931 & 1982). The info box does not describe Canada's 'establishment' because Canada, as a colony of France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(New_France), was established long before 1867. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:E9EE:7E7:A902:F8CF (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it an independent country? I don't have any references that support that claim. It's a country. It is quite dependent on other countries. The claim that its establishment as a nation has more more common with other commonwealth nations is also not supported. For instance South Africa fought a war for its independence and lost. Australia's case is also radically different from Canada's as it was originally a penal colony and things changed there over time. No clue if Canada and New Zealand have any common history, but I'm sure the fact that the sheep outnumber the people has something to do with their history. No sources. No changes required. And you attacked me and I don't take kindly to that. Ever. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

All, it's Christmas. I suggest a cessation of comments on this topic section until the morning of the 27th. This will provide a cool down and the chance for all to enjoy the holidays. This exchange of insults and vitriol is unsuitable in the best of times, and even more so Christmas day. This isn't an emergency, and resolution of this matter can wait 48hrs. trackratte (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, trackratte. Merry Christmas to you. Walter Görlitz's most recent post is not even worthy of a response—it's absurd trolling at its worst. 2600:8800:8002:7D00:126:D24:592F:8CAC (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

You are trolling at its worst. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Lets keep it civil both of you. Would hate to see anyone blocked for personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Would like everyone to know I have opened an account and will be making improvements from it—no longer my IP address. Mystery Guyman (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't linked before, here is the previous (short) conversation on this subject. Not sure if it adds anything or not, but it can't hurt to link to it: previous conversation. — Gopher65_talk 15:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed solution

All, I have put forward a proposed solution in the mainspace. The greatest issue I see here is that "establishment" means the 'act of setting up or putting in place a new organization, system, or set of rules', and thus its use here to mean 'gain independence from the UK' is widely seen as confusing or inappropriate. Second, there is no firm date of independence when it comes to Canada as has already been discussed, such as Canada after 1867 was still a British colony, 1931 saw domestic autonomy but not legal independence, and defacto full Canadian sovereignty and state-hood was achieved well prior to the passing of the Canada Act in 1982, leaving all of these dates as inappropriate markers for "independence", or even "establishment" as these were simply milestones on the way to establishing the Canadian nation.

Subsequently, I see the only way forward as setting forward the key dates of Canada's "establishment" (ie the setting up of a Canadian nation) within the infobox. This of course must include the date of the establishment of the French colony of Canada, the ceding of this colony to the British Empire, the arising of a domestic Canadian autonomy with Confederation (which saw control of domestic policy and law passed to Canada from the UK), the cessation of Canada as a subordinate colony to one of a state equal in status to the UK in 1931, and finally the passage of Canada, de jure, to fully sovereign state.

In this way, a reader can see a quick, accurate, and clear snapshot of the evolution of the Canadian nation from French and then British colonies, to the fully sovereign and independent nation of today. All of the relevant blue links are right there in the infobox for those wishing to have further details or clarification (of which the lede of each blue-linked article does a great job in providing succinct and clear additional overviews). In this way the concerns regarding the confusion of the term "establishment" are rendered clear, and the issue of no single "independence day" being available are also resolved in clear and accurate way. trackratte (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks good to me. It is clear and it marks all of the important events and includes links where possible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well done....been holding my tongue on this one. Good solution.--Moxy (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the infobox returned to its original form and the word "independence" used. IP/Mystery presents a compelling argument for why the term "independence" should be used. The issue could have been resolved by simply changing the word "establishment" to "independence". The current infobox design is clunky, confusing and inappropriate. As CMD correctly notes, the infobox of this particular article, and indeed every other similar article, is meant to show when (and in Canada's case, the process of how) a country became independent of its imperial power (Great Britain). NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"independent" is not entirely accurate though, and not the WP:CONSENSUS decision for wording. Too easily confused with our rebellious neighbours to the south of us. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

As was suggested previously, please refrain from comparing Canada's independence process to the United States'. I don't see how using the word "independence" would be even remotely confusing for the average reader (on condition that all appropriate events and dates from 1867 to 1982 are listed). You talk of WP:CONSENSUS, but there's no consensus for the current format. Judging by the comments here (and the lack of a credible counterargument for why "independence" shouldn't be used), it seems there's more of a consensus for the word "independence" than there is for the word "establishment". NorthernFactoid (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Was it? Oh I missed that. In that case, the previous rebuttal of ignoring the American process applies here again. It's a perfectly valid comment and unfortunately, the largest group reading this article will be Americans. They will misinterpret "independent" likely through no fault of their own, but due entirely to their introspective and otherwise poor educational system. The consensus so far has been against using the word "independent", but since you're unable to accept that... Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Given the lack of any credible counterargument for not using the word "independence", I see no consensus here favouring the word "establishment". See WP:BRD. Your comments regarding American readers are highly speculative and therefore invalid. NorthernFactoid (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that you have been reading it, but there have been several editors who have argued against its use and quite credible. That you don't like the arguments does not make it lack in credible. BRD is about removing an editor being bod, another editor reverting, and a discussion about the edits ensuing. Here, there's been no revert. Unless of course you're saying that the series of bold addition were not credible bold edits, that the revert was...well it never happened. This discussion is certainly barely credible. One (American) editor (who says that any discussion of American interpretation of the content should be ignored) wants "independent". Anyone else?

@Canterbury Tail: argued against it.

@Air.light: made it clear that it was a process and that should be reflected.

@Dbrodbeck: doesn't think the original needed to be changed to suit you.

@Patar knight: argued against your desired changes.

@Moxy: thinks the new version is good, but needed some tweaks. Mystery Guyman and

@Chipmunkdavis: reiterates that independence was a process but does not state that the word "independent" must be used.

It seems that only NorthernFactoid and Mystery Guyman would like to see independent in the infobox. Seems like CONSENSUS, but we'll discuss further.

The only major disagreement is whether to include any content prior to confederation (1867) in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, this discussion was to be about the recent changes to the infobox, not to the addition of the word "independent" to the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

People have been making credible arguments against it. You're free to disagree with them and debate them, but you're not free to simply handwave them away as not credible. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Air.light: favours the word independence.

@Mystery Guyman: favours the word independence.

@NorthernFactoid: favours the word independence.

@Dbrodbeck: is indifferent.

The other editors mentioned by Walter Görlitz do not present any valid counterarguments to Mystery Guyman's arguments in favour of the word independence. This is the key point for there being no consensus for either the current format of the infobox or the word establishment. I'm not saying the wonderful editors here have no credibility ... I'm saying no valid counterarguments for avoiding the word independence have been presented. NorthernFactoid (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Last time this was brought up, it was brought up not as a comparison between the US and Canada (which is an apples to oranges comparison), but rather as a comparison of Australia and Canada. IIRC, the reason why Australia could be said to have become "independent" of Britain at a specific date was because the country was created wholesale on that date. Canada was not. Instead, Canada was established as a reasonably formal concept in the 1700s, and had various regions kinda... mush together until in 1867 they were legally bound. It's impossible to pick a single date for independence for Canada the way you can for the US, or even (to a certain degree) like you can for Australia. Even the latter is more clear cut than Canada. I don't have strong feelings toward "Establishment" (which is a clunky word), but I don't feel independence can be accurately used in this case. — Gopher65_talk 15:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Australia. And besides, "Australia" merely federated in 1901 ("Canada" federated in 1867), it didn't become completely independent of British rule until 1986. Also, there are the similar examples of South Africa and New Zealand to consider as well. NorthernFactoid (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"The Federation of Australia was the process by which the six separate British self-governing colonies of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South 'Australia', and Western 'Australia' agreed to unite and form the 'Commonwealth of Australia', establishing a system of federalism in 'Australia'": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia. "Canadian Confederation (French: Confédération canadienne) was the process by which the British colonies of 'Canada', Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick were united into one 'Dominion of Canada' on July 1, 1867": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation. You can't make this stuff up. NorthernFactoid (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, right;)? But I think you've made an argument against your own point: Australia was "federated" in 1901, not... independentized (how is that not a word?). As much as we'd all love to be able to pick a single date that Canada (or Australia) became independent, it just isn't possible. As you just said, there wasn't a single date of independence (which happened in 1982 for Canada with the patriation of the constitution), because it was a process that took hundreds of years, one small step at a time.

The real reason for this is because as much as it warms people's hearts to think that the independence of places like Canada and Australia was done as a more peaceful version of the "US-style" political revolution ("we declare we're independent!", but with less blood), it wasn't. Instead it was more along the lines of "the British Empire collapsed over a 150 year period, and these were the leftover bits which now had to band together and fend for themselves" style independence. If Britain *could* have managed a planet spanning empire with an iron fist, they would have. But they couldn't, and they slowly found that out the hard way. This glacial collapse led to fits and starts of increasing independence for many of the colonies as a natural side effect of Britain trying to hold on to as much authority as they could with the least amount of effort (and money) they could manage to spend. Because of this, even trying to pick a single date of "establishment" (or whatever word we could think of that's less jarring on first viewing that that one - I like "founding", personally) is impossible, never mind picking a single date of independence.

And even then we're leaving aside the sticky fact that Canada could technically be said not to be wholly independent of Britain, because the "King/Queen of Canada" is set in stone as being whoever the monarch of England is. Can a people be said to be completely independent when they have no say in picking their own head of state? Probably not, using the most pedantic definitions of "independent" or "free". It's hard to give a date for total independence when it could be argued that independence hasn't happened yet:P. — Gopher65_talk 20:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically, Canada and Australia could select a different monarch than whoever the monarch of England is, but it's not likely to happen. And yes, "founding" is OK as well with me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've not made an argument against my own point at all. Replace the word Australia with Canada (and vice versa), and the process by which those countries began their journeys to independence is almost identical (that was the point I was attempting to make). I'm certainly not trying to pick a single date to show Canada's becoming an independent country. A single date isn't necessary because the infobox is meant demonstrate Canada's gradual process of independence (over a number of years), hence Confederation, the Statute of Westminster and the Canada Act are mentioned. We could get extremely pedantic and technical by saying there isn't even a single date on which the United States became independent because Congress voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, July 4 saw the Declaration of Independence ratified, and Great Britain did not recognize American independence until 1783 (possibly even 1784 when the Treaty of Paris became effective). With respect, your analysis of the Canadian monarchy is noted but not valid. Constitutionally, the Queen of Canada is Canada's head of state. Her role in Canada is completely "independent" (couldn't resist using the word, hah) of her formal role in Britain as Queen of England. But something tells me you know this already. Let's not get bogged down with pedantic details, questioning whether or not Canada is really independent simply because Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (among others) share the same monarch whose roles differ from country to country. "The Statute of Westminster, passed in [December 11] 1931, had granted the former colonies full legal independence" [...] http://www.revparl.ca/27/2/27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf. Oh, is that an actual date of independence? ;-) NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Confederation is the Canadian term for Canada's "federating". Canadians say "tomato", Australians say "tomato". NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gopher65: "As you just said, there wasn't a single date of independence (which happened in 1982 for Canada with the patriation of the constitution), because it was a process that took hundreds of years, one small step at a time." I don't disagree with you. But enlighten me as to why this somehow disqualifies use of the word "independence". No one here has been able to answer this very basic of questions. Yes, Canada's independence happened gradually and slowly (compared to the United States, but again, there are other noteworthy international comparisons besides America). How does gradual, progressive independence make the modern state of Canada any less independent as of now (2017)? NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the entire response in context, not individual phrases. I'll wait for you to find the answer that was given as part of that response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Walter, I think you need a timeout from this discussion. I find your purposeful obfuscation unhelpful and discourteous. If you'd like to answer my question, I will carefully consider what you have to say in good faith. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you'd allow others to answer properly. Thank you. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That was both insulting and amusing at the same time. I find your purposeful ignorance unhelpful and discourteous. If you'd like to read the content again without your red-white-and-blue glasses on you'll find the answer to your question. It is in the sentence following what you quoted. I will carefully consider what you have to say in good faith. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you'd allow others to speak for themselves without making it look they're as ignorant as you clearly are. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone else besides Walter Görlitz like to answer my question? How does gradual, progressive independence that occurred over many years disqualify the use of the word "independence"? Furthermore, how does gradual independence make the modern state of Canada any less independent as of now (which is the implication that can be drawn from avoiding the word)? NorthernFactoid (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. No. Did you read the paragraph? It starts "The real reason for this is because". Your answer is there. That you don't like the answer (spoiler alert, it's about Americans not understanding the word's full connotation) does not mean it's not present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've read it. It doesn't answer the question. NorthernFactoid (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

How about both of you take a break from this talk page for a few days and let others come in and make their comments. When the two of you are talking back and forth, or someone continually responds to every comment someone makes, it discourages people from taking part. There is too much text here from only the two of you and most editors won't want to wade through it. So take a few of days, there's an entire encyclopaedia out there that needs editing, and come back again and see if anyone else has added to the discussion. There's no reason this needs to be settled immediately, it can take a couple of weeks so not everything needs responded to as soon as. Go away, calm down and allow for others to take part. Canterbury Tail talk 23:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I take a breather for a few days and return to a storm. @Gopher65: the British Empire began to dissolve, yes, and its colonies became what? Created? Established? Formed? Founded? No, British colonies became independent. A violent, peaceful or gradual independence from an empire or independence realized as the consequence of an empire’s demise makes no difference to a colony’s final political outcome—that is, AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY. Just because there’s no specific date that marks independence—although 11 December 1931 might be a close contender—doesn’t mean Canada can’t be described as independent of the United Kingdom. I’m not sure why that’s even a point of contention; it’s irrelevant, and no one is advocating the inclusion of one specific date to mark the country’s independence. As regards @NorthernFactoid:'s 'compromise', I’ve consistently said independence is independence—there’s no distinction between sudden or gradual independence. Including ‘gradual’ in ‘independence from the United Kingdom’ would be superfluous. As NorthernFactoid notes, the Wikipedia pages in other languages [2][3][4][5], and even this one pre-November 2006 [6], include the word independence preceding the three key events—Confederation 1867, the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the Canada Act 1982—that contributed, over time, to modern Canada’s evolution from British colony to fully independent state. Based on the inclusion of these events in the infobox, it couldn’t be clearer that Canada’s independence came about gradually. The current infobox is bizarre because the article is about the contemporary state of Canada—it’s not about nonexistent, pre-independence political entities that belonged to other countries, i.e. colonies. The French colony of Canada that was established in 1534 is neither the modern Canada to which this article refers nor the entity that became independent of British rule. Finally, Walter Gorlitz’s blatant anti-Americanism is both disturbing and sad—without the United States, he wouldn’t be sitting behind his screen pecking out nonsensical claptrap. Gorlitz’s general ignorance and his ignorance regarding the US education system is, likewise, unsettling. Who is he to speak for all Americans and their education system? (American and British institutions of higher learning dominate the global top ten, whereas Canadian schools don’t even make most top twenty rankings.) If Gorlitz feels Americans might become confused because of the word independence (but, of course, they won’t find ‘establishment’ or ‘founding’ confusing), he needs to provide sources that demonstrate this. But even then, it wouldn’t change the reality that Canada is an independent country. Nationality and place of residence are immaterial to this discussion, but I’m obviously a lot more confident about my identity than many others appear to be. I don’t define myself by what I’m not, and I recognize that the United States is absolutely not the only country worthy of comparison. Mystery Guyman (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I see your point that inserting the word gradual is somewhat unnecessary, but I proposed it for the sake of compromise. I still may go ahead with a bold edit and ensuing discussion here, since that seems to be the modus operandi for making changes to this article. NorthernFactoid (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Mystery Guyman, saying that the initial establishment of Canada should not be included simply because "The French colony of Canada that was established in 1534 is neither the modern Canada to which this article refers nor the entity that became independent of British rule" is a relevance fallacy and is missing the point entirely. This article is about "Canada", not "Canada in 2016", and thus includes information spanning its entire history which as you can see in the article text, includes a section on aboriginal 'pre-history' and the fact that "In 1534, French explorer Jacques Cartier explored the Saint Lawrence River, where, on July 24, he planted a 10-metre (33 ft) cross bearing the words "Long Live the King of France" and took possession of the territory (known as the colony of Canada) in the name of King Francis I". Thus, clearly then this article covers the entirety of Canada and not just the entity that exists today in 2016. Second, as you can see in articles such as England and Scotland, they treat this issue in the exact same way as is currently the case in this article, with "Establishment" or "Formation" as the infobox title, and the most salient dates regarding its establishment and evolution. The England article has Anglo-Saxon settlements in the 5-6th century as its first date under "Establishment", despite the fact that these German tribal kingdoms are not the same entity as the contemporary England of today. But once again, such a sentiment is missing the point, as the articles in question are not only about the contemporary nation or state of today, but includes its entire history, culture, languages, etc, etc. trackratte (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

trackratte, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're getting at. The article is about contemporary Canada, is it not? I think an accurate definition of contemporary Canada would be the entity that began its process of independence in 1867. Is it necessary to discuss various political entities and events that occured before 1867? Absolutely—it's Canada's history, and no one is contesting the sections of article that already do this. But I don't believe the contested section of infobox, meant to briefly array the independence of countries (and indeed how and from whom independence was realized), should delve into the entire histories of countries. Comparing Canada's independence from the United Kingdom to the founding of England and Scotland is an apples to oranges comparison. It cannot be done, so let's not even go there. Nevertheless, I'm happy the word independence has returned to the infobox. Mystery Guyman (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

1. This article is about Canada, period. And you keep saying that Canada began its process of independence in 1867, no, it did not. It remained subject to the UK just as the Fathers of Confederation and the majority of the population wanted it kept. Confederation was not a deliberate move towards independence from the UK. The reasons for Confederation were economic expansion, political deadlock, and banding together to protect themselves against the Americans (Manifest Destiny, Fenian raids, the American Civil War and the American attacks on Canada such as the siege of Quebec and the taking of Montreal). The first concrete move towards independence was the 1926 Balfour declaration. If you look at the Canadian Confederation article, it states that "The term dominion was chosen to indicate Canada's status as a self-governing polity of the British Empire, the first time it was used in reference to a country ...it was far from full independence from the United Kingdom."

Also, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that "There can be no doubt now that Canada has become a sovereign state. Its sovereignty was acquired in the period between its separate signature of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the Statute of Westminster, 1931". There is simply a lack of any reliable evidence that Confederation was either A) The start of Canada, or B) the beginning of any Canadian movement towards independence. In fact, the overwhelming majority of sources outline how Canada began under the French, and how a movement for Canadian independence began in the aftermath of the First World War (see Vimy Ridge) as expressed in the Treaty of Versailles, and rose to the 1926 Balfour declaration and the eventual 1931 Statute of Westminister.

2. The section of the infobox under discussion is not "meant to briefly array the independence of countries", it is meant to outline their establishment/formation, and if not sovereign, their type of sovereignty. Almost all of the country infoboxes that I have seen that focus on independence are because they didn't exist prior to that independence date, such as the United States. That situation does not apply to Canada.

3. I am not advocating for outlining the 'entire history' of Canada, so arguing against doing so is going up against a strawman as no one is advocating for doing such a thing.

Thus, as we can plainly see the highest quality reliable sources clearly point against the fact that Confederation was due to, or the beginning, or any sort of Canadian movement towards independence, as succinctly stated by the Supreme Court of Canada itself. The question is not one surrounding Confederation, but whether or not we go with "Establishment" which, according to the overwhelming majority of reliable sources was in 1534/'the 16th century', or we start with "Independence from the UK" which could start with Versailles in 1919, the Balfour Declaration in 1926, or Statute of Westminster 1931 depending on whether we want to start with the date for the beginning of an independence movement (1919), officialization (1926), or legal implementation (1931). trackratte (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz is fine with the edit made by trackratte on 30 December ^. As of today, however, Walter is not: 'I too think that anything prior to 1867 is not really part of the history of Canada. It was the history of British North America and French North America. Multiple regions that were governed independently. It always struck me as odd that Upper Canada and Lower Canada dominated the history books, while Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. are barely mentioned (save for the Acadian deportation) and Charlottetown mysteriously appears on the scene when the fathers of confederation needed a place to talk. While it's Ango-centric going further back in history is also Euro-centric. No mentions of the role the first nations played in the formation of Canada. All of that is avoided by starting at 1867.' This only proves that Walter has never been serious about reaching consensus or finding a workable solution. It's also noteworthy that Walter claims he doesn't care to cater to Americans [7], but by avoiding a specific word that only he thinks they'll find confusing, Walter is doing exactly that—catering to Americans. Mystery Guyman (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

They probably dominated the history books because education is a provincial matter and each province chooses its own history textbooks. TFD (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But the province did not control the university textbooks that I have read. The provincial boards have also not controlled what I have read later.

However, Canada is a political entity that did not exist when the natives occupied this land. That's the main reason for my change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Establishment, Formation, and Independence

I disagree with including the pre-confederation events. There is a difference between the setting up of the various colonies (even the original four had different dates of British control), and the setting up of the modern federation. The descriptions however, are an interesting take. CMD (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Chip, why do you disagree with including anything prior to Confederation? I consider them necessary after having done a considerable amount of research, as "Canada" did not magically appear in 1867, but what was constituted that year was largely a continuation of what was already in place. The British colonies (and Britain) felt it was necessary to band together lest they be absorbed by the United States. Subsequently, the Constitution Act of 1867 declared that the "Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue", with the same Parliament, same political leaders, same Canada Gazette, and even the rules and procedures manual for the House of Commons simply stayed in use. Second, Canada's history didn't simply pop into existence in 1867 either, but began when the word "Canada" first literally appeared on the map in the mid 1500s, as can be seen from this example from 1577. And as we can see from countless sources, including this official publication (p. 77), the sovereigns of Canada began in the 15th century, with Canada's governors general starting in the 1700s. Another example is from one of the Government of Canada's history pages depicting "Jacques Cartier takes possession of Canada for France, 1534". Subsequently, painting the "establishment" of Canada as somehow only magically beginning in 1867 is an extremely revisionist approach, and looking at the record, a narrative which really only came into vogue during the 1960s. trackratte (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That section of the infobox is intended to show when a country became a country, or when sovereignty was obtained and who it was from. While nothing ever magically appears, the infobox is not meant to encapsulate the whole history of a country. Canada's movement towards independence was a process rather than and event, but including 1534 nor 1763 as steps towards independence seems a stretch. CMD (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

CMD, if you look at other countries such as England you see "Establishment" with a variety of dates like the Canada inbobox is currently. For Scotland you see "Formation" with dates for "established", union with England, etc. For United Kingdom you have "Formation" with a variety of dates as well. Just because some former colonies focus only on date of independence within their infoboxes does not mean that it the best route for the Canada infobox. Particularly as Canada is not a straightforward colony established by a single country and then given independence by that same country in one fell swoop. Thus, the current "Establishment" here in this infobox, which includes the date Canada was first established and the most salient dates in its national development thereafter, is perfectly inline with what this spot in the infobox is used for and what many other country pages in fact do. Now, one could always debate whether or not "Formation" or "Establishment" is the better word, or perhaps a third option, but the fundamentals remain the same, the establishment and formation of a particular nation. trackratte (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

England and Scotland are seem poor comparisons to make, considering neither of them are sovereign and thus the question of how they gained sovereignty is a bit moot. I suppose however, that if they did become sovereign, the dates which established them as political entities would be important. From that perspective, England does disagree with me and starts with settlements, like you propose. Scotland however does not, with its first event being the creation of the Kingdom of Scotland, when smaller kingdoms coalesced into a larger one. That would seem to me to be a good analogy for my argument rather than for yours. The United Kingdom article similarly starts with the events of union, rather than the events of the creation of the English Parliament. I again see this as far more analogous to my argument than to yours. CMD (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

CMD, the core point is that the statement that the point of the infobox is to show when independence was gained is simply not true. And Scotland and England are fine enough comparisons as they are, in fact, countries. New Zealand and Australia are not perfect corollaries either, as for example the colony of New Zealand did not come into existence until 1841 and was established by the UK and gained independence in the 1940s, whereas Canada was established by a different country from which it eventually got independence hundreds of years prior. Regardless, getting into a debate on whether Scotland or England are perfect corollaries to Canada is missing the point, as that was not my intended purpose, which was instead simply to represent the fact that the purpose of this section in country infoboxes is to outline the Formation/Establishment of the Country in question, and not simply the gaining of independence. Subsequently, to focus on just one part of Canada's formation by completely cutting out its actual establishment is not the best way forward in line with what this section is actually used for around Wikipedia. Second, I think there is some confusion here as for example, the United States uses independence from the UK as its point of departure, which makes perfect sense in the same way as starting off with Canada in 1532, as previous to American independence from GB the entity of the "United States of America" simply did not exist, so the start point for that country is their date of independence. Canada, however, was first established in 1532 which the government, official, and academic sources all support by mentioning the fact that Canada was first founded by Jacques Cartier in 1532 as a French Colony. Finally, according to WikiPolicy, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", and as we can clearly see, the initial establishment of Canada in 1532 is a key fact appearing in the article regarding its Establishment/Formation and should thus appear in the Establishment/Formation part of the infobox. I would also like to add that if you look at the Country Infobox template, there is a section called "|sovereignty_type" and "|sovereignty_note" which would be the place to discuss independence, and where the current section under discussion is entitled "|established_event1" which exists to note the "" and where the "|establishment_date[s]" exist to to outline subsequent "key events". Thus, as we can see, noting the first "key event in [the] history of" Canada, which as we can see in the sources is its initial establishment as a French colony called "Canada", is exactly what this section of the infobox is intended for, and there is a separate section within the infobox which is for sovereignty/independence.

Now, having gone over all that, what do you think is the ideal way to improve this section of the infobox? trackratte (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing the section of the infobox that begins with the field "sovereignty_type". The sovereignty_type field and the established_event fields all fall into the same section of the infobox, see the live page. Sovereignty_type creates the title of that infobox section. You used it yourself when you edited in your proposal. There are not separate sections: the established_events fields provide context to the sovereignty_type field, much as recognized_regional_languages provides context to official_languages and the various leader fields provide context to the government field. Regarding this section on sovereignty, independence is, as has been pointed out by others here, the sovereignty level that Canada has. While I have mentioned I am interested in the possibility of different words, the argument for the word is cogent, and brings out relevancy here. It's important to not focus too much on specific words without considering context. If you want to use Scotland and England as comparisons simply because they share a title then fine, but they are in extremely different positions to Canada, and what works for them may work different for this article (although as I noted Scotland seems to fit the pattern I argue for). Similarly, just because one title/name is passed down a series of entities does not make them the same entity, while changing a title/name may not change what the entity is. How we consider the entity does affect what we consider the establishment to be.

As for my specific thoughts on what the content should be, I would prefer the confederation-westminster-patriation formula that existed prior to the recent changes and has been mentioned by others here (although I am happy to drop the creation of Nunavut). CMD (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

CMD, forgive me, when I say "section" I'm talking about the individual lines of the template, I realise now that was a confusing choice, I should have used "line" instead of "section". I've added a comment on the mainspace under "sovereignty_note" saying when full independence from the UK was achieved to incorporate Northern's concerns regarding making independence from the UK abundantly clear within the infobox. Regarding the "establishment" of Canada, I do not see why we should start half way so to speak, why would we not include the establishment of Canada in 1532? Especially given the point of this portion of the infobox is to summarize the article content regarding the establishment of Canada, which clearly 'starts at the beginning' with the establishment of the French Colony of Canada. I am having a hard time seeing why we should simply cut out Canada's actual establishment and French history entirely, and include only the latter half of Canada's British colonial history and current independence. trackratte (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that helps, but even taking that into perspective, as I noted some lines support other lines. They should not be taken in isolation, as they are intended to work together within their sections. See for example how your comment appears in the article infobox, a bit oddly formatted and out of place. The sovereignty_note line is effectively a continuation of the sovereignty_type line, and their being different code lines means they can be formatted differently so as to provide visual distinctions.

Regarding presentation, it's not about starting half-way, it's about figuring out what we're trying to show. While the modern Canada takes its name from previous entities, that does not mean they are the same. The dates of these are certainly relevant to Canada, being notable parts of history, but so are many others that also appear in the article. I am arguing that we use those lines to support the sovereignty line, using the dates that established Canada's sovereignty creating it to be what it is today. This with Canada is obviously difficult due to the a historical process rather than a single clear date (and this is ignoring that placing down specific de jure dates ignores then gradual cultural evolution that increased de facto independence), and I feel the best dates then are those that describe the establishment of the Dominion of Canada, which is what is the independent state of today. CMD (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

CMD, I finally see your point in that you are seeing these lines holistically in outlining events towards "sovereignty", which is an excellent point and I'm glad to finally understand a bit better where you are coming from. I would offer the following points:

1. The infobox sovereignty_type line is not meant for a country such as Canada, for example there is no sovereignty date line, which is essentially what we are doing with the sovereignty note line instead. Holistically, the ensemble of sovereignty and establishment lines create a section whose purpose is to outline the Establishment/Formation of the currently constituted entity.
2. Inline with WP, the infobox should cover the key events of the article text, so in this case should include all of they key events leading to the establishment of the currently constituted and sovereign Canada.
3. The current modern-day Canada is legally a bicultural and bilingual state, reflected in its symbols and everyday conduct of state affairs based on the "two founding nations". Thus, the establishment of Canada as a French colony in 1532 was absolutely vital to how Canada came to be the state and nation that it is today. The ceding of Canada from France to Britain is once again critical to understanding how Canada developed to where it is today. Thus, the exclusion of these two foundational events on the way to the modern-day sovereign Canada is counter-productive to the extreme. It is for this reason that I feel that excluding the very establishment of Canada, its roots as a French colony and effectively half of its entire legally constituted identity, to be an extremely anglo-centric POV. While perhaps the initial establishment of Canada does not directly lead to its complete independence, it is an important milestone on the way, for as they say every journey starts with the first step. Canada would not be the independent nation or state it is today if it had not been founded by the French in 1532, but in fact would be something manifestly different and by today's constitutionally entrenched standards of what Canada is, would not in fact be Canadian at all.
4. If we are absolutely hell-bent on cutting Canada's initial establishment and French roots from the "Establishment" portion of the infobox, which as it is a critical part of what Canada is today in culture and in law and thus would be a mistake as I outline above, why start in 1867? The Parliament of Canada and its House of Commons was established in 1840, with John A Macdonald and other important founders of confederation Canadian MPs prior to 1867, and of course with the ability to administer Canada's own domestic affairs. All that happened in 1867 was the joining of Canada with two other British colonies to form a federation of four provinces, in effect simply creating another layer of government, which is not to downplay the importance of the event in Canadian history, only that it did not immediately result in any greater independence than the colony of Canada had had in 1866. So while 1867 is an important date in the history of the formation of Canada, it is not the defining event when we are talking only of independence.

Thus, I find it to be a substantial loss to remove Canada's establishment from the establishment section of the infobox, to remove half of Canada's history, and to remove Canada's French foundations which of course are central to the culture, language, structure, identity, geography, and nationality of the Canada of today. Subsequently, I find that the inclusion of these two dates are in line with your opinion that we should see the independant Canada of today holistically as a result of the establishment dates included within the infobox. Finally, although a bit of a truism, how could Canada proceed along the road to independence without coming into existence in the first place? So, first a subordinate entity needs to be created before it could ever become an independently co equal one, thus the first step towards an entity's independence is its creation as a subordinate entity in the first place. All in all, I think we are now coming from the same place, although perhaps with a slightly different perspective. After having conducted a great deal more research and written all of this, my feeling is that excluding establishment is only acknowledging half of what constitutes Canada in the present day and is very anglo-centric, while including all the key events leading to the presently constituted, independent Canada provides a much more holistic and balanced perspective of what and how Canada is today. trackratte (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1. The sovereignty_type line is not meant for a date, it is meant to provide flexibility for the use of this template over a variety of entities, which would have different levels of sovereignty. Canada has the highest level of sovereignty, independence. A date line does not seem relevant to this as it described current status.
2. The infobox should cover key events. That does not mean it should cover all key events, which may be impossible within the space of an infobox. As I noted, even your proposal misses out many key events.
3. It is only arguably anglo-centric if you continue to look upon it as you do as a historical timeline. And again, that timeline remains incomplete: there are many other events critical to the creation of Canada as the state it is today. We can not treat this as a completely timeline of history, or as a point from which we can explain Canada's culture, language, identity, etc., because such a timeline would require an article in itself. You haven't included "all" the key events in your proposal, and we should not aim to. It needs a much much more limited scope.
4. As I said, starting in 1867 is appropriate because that is what created the Dominion of Canada, the entity which exists today. I think your "all that happened" does in fact downplay the event in history. It was 1867 that set up the Canadian state, despite the pre-existing entity with the same name (there's even a preamble in the act to clarify this: "4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act."). That it was a simple continuation of a pre-existing structure and simply the creation of a new layer of government is unsupported by the text on this article and on other articles, as well as by many outside sources. The Parliament of Canada website seems to treat 1867 as its start date for example.

As for 1867 not being the defining date for independence, I agree, hence the inclusion of the other two most significant dates as well. CMD (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1. CMD, I never purported to create a timeline of events, nor to cover all of them, but to merely cover the most prevalent dates, ie the "key" events, and when I say "key events" I mean precisely that, not all relevant events, or all important events. As I highlight elsewhere, any subordinate entity will naturally have three "key events" leading to their independence, their establishment ("birth"), some event showing a desire or impetus towards independence or the rise of a sense of nationalism apart from its parent country ("growth"), and the event marking their departure from the parent country ("independence"), or in otherwords a start, a middle, and an end.

If we were to reduce the establishment/formation of modern Canada to just three events, it would be apparent that they would be its "birth" in 1532, the "growth" of a nation in 1867, and its "independence" in 1982.

2. While 1867 certainly did create the Dominion of Canada, the present day state is a completely different entity then that of 1867. First, it is no longer officially or legally referred to as a Dominion, second it is geographically completely different, third it is no longer a colony but an independent country, fourth its citizenship, flag, coat of arms, national anthem, culture, identity, makeup, and political workings are also completely different. The relationship between the provinces and the federal government are completely different than they were initially, and a million and one other differences. As to your comment that 1867 was the creation of the Canadian "state" ("a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government") this was in no more true afterwards than before, as the 1840 colony of Canada had a territory considered as an organized political community under one government, the Government of Canada. As you can see, the Canada Gazette, the "official newspaper of the government of Canada" in the present day, was "was first published on October 2, 1841", ie the same time as the British Colony of Canada's government was established, which is all to say that the present day Government of Canada, its procedure, protocol, publications, records, and language all started in 1841. Now we are on a tangent, and like I said, I am not meaning to downplay the importance of Confederation obviously, merely that I think its treatment as the "be all end all" of Canada is a gross over-attribution of importance, as plainly a great deal that is Canada today was established previous to 1867. Although my use of the phrase "all that happened" was clearly hyperbolic, it was merely meant to underscore the point that extremely important, was not the birth of an entirely new entity.

Thus, as we can see in the 1867 Constitution Act itself, it states that "Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue". As a result, and as we can plainly see, the Constitution Act of 1867 did not purport to create an entirely new entity known as Canada, but simply to continue and to expand upon what was already there, and due to this expansion "the Name of Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act", which is to say the combination of the now former colonies of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, as opposed to what Canada meant up to that moment which was simply the colony of Canada itself (thereafter known, geographically, as Ontario and Quebec to avoid confusion, as clearly a province with the same name as the country would be unwise).

As to your comment regarding the Parliament of Canada, that is there start point, as the Parliament consists of three things, the Queen, the House of Commons, and the Senate, and the Senate did not exist prior to 1867.

Once again, going on tangents. The start of Canada as a French colony cannot go unremarked, its institutions, language, culture, and national and state symbols are all founded on this important point. Even if we ignore the French question (if Canada was established in 1867 as a British colony, why do we speak French, have civil law, have fleur de lys in our national symbols, etc, etc?), I fail to see how one can reasonably expect to summarize the establishment of Canada without its start point, the very event that created it in the first place? As I said, even if we reduce the key events to just three, 1534 would by necessity be one of them.

Seeing as we are both not arguing for removing 1867, nor for adding more dates, but in fact I would be fine with just three, I find it hard to believe that we cannot come to some sort of consensus. Particularly given the absolute abundance of reliable sources supporting the fact that Canada was first established under the French in the 16th century. trackratte (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I too think that anything prior to 1867 is not really part of the history of Canada. It was the history of British North America and French North America. Multiple regions that were governed independently. It always struck me as odd that Upper Canada and Lower Canada dominated the history books, while Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. are barely mentioned (save for the Acadian deportation) and Charlottetown mysteriously appears on the scene when the fathers of confederation needed a place to talk.

While it's Ango-centric going further back in history is also Euro-centric. No mentions of the role the first nations played in the formation of Canada. All of that is avoided by starting at 1867. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand how starting at 1867 somehow avoids not having to mention the role of the first nations, unless I misunderstand your meaning. I also fail to see the relevance of having to mention the role of the first nations as this is an infobox on establishment, not the article text on what role which people had helping the British or French at any given time.

Second, how to you content that "anything prior to 1867 is not really part of the history of Canada"? Look at any Canadian history textbook, or for example this government publication "Exploring a River, Naming Canada" and multiple other government publications and web pages beging the history of Canada in 1534.

Third, if Canada began in 1867, why was "Canada" on the map in the 1560s, and why does Canada speak French today?

Fourth, Canadian history focuses on Canada, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, the Province of Canada "while Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. are barely mentioned" is because they are not mentioned until they became part of Canada.

Fifth, how is going back further than Confederation somehow "Euro-centric"? We are not talking about Europe at all, but only focusing on Canada. Canada has two founding nations, the French and English, and two languages, French and English. Saying that Canada only popped into existence under the British is an extremely ango-centric view (anglo-Canadian, not anglo-European), and also demonstrably false through academic text books, government sources, etc etc. Additionally, Canada existed under the British prior to 1867, and continued to exist under the British afterwards.

Lastly, of course the history of Canada is intertwined with that of French and British North America, as Canada was of course part of both. So I fail to see how that somehow precludes us starting from the establishment of Canada. trackratte (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

All topics for the article, not to be in the infobox.

If you go back to the founding of New France, why not the various confederations of first people? They supported both the early traders and settlers and the "territory" that was claimed was not unoccupied. That's why I wouldn't go back before 1867: it raises too many issues that cannot be addressed simply and succinctly in the infobox. It also threatens to make it too large. And as I wrote, it only involved small portions of what would later become Canada, focusing too heavily on settlement along the St. Laurence and around Lake Ontario. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think a significant issue hampering us in this discussion is a general conflation or lack of distinction between Canada and New France, as they are not at all the same thing. New France is a term, like British North America, meaning all of France's colonial holdings in North America, and New France covered a vast territory from the tip of Labrador all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. New France had a number of separate colonies, such as Louisiana for example, and Canada was one of these separate colonies. So when we discuss the history of Canada we are not discussing the history of New France, but only a very specific part of New France, Canada. Plainly, the majority of New France is part of the modern day United States.

So, Walter, we are not in fact "going back to the founding of New France" as New France is not at all part of this discussion, nor is anyone suggesting that it form part of the infobox. What we are doing instead is going back to the founding of Canada.

Second, we are not focusing on the history of the physical territories that would become Canada, but only Canada itself (an entity), otherwise we would also have to discuss the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Russians as well, which we are clearly not. Thus, discourse of other colonies or territories do not enter this discussion until they become part of Canada, for example the French colony of Acadia has a different history than the French colony of Canada, and the two only merge at Confederation. The history of the colony of Newfoundland/Plaisance does not become part of Canada until it joined in 1949. If we want to talk about the history of all of the lands under British North America or New France the more appropriate place is under those specific articles, or under an article regarding the X history of North America.

To answer your question then, why not go back to various confederations of "first people"? Because they did not establish an entity which was called, and is called, "Canada". Canada did not exist until it was founded by the French. Keeping in mind that an entity/state is defined as "an organized political community under one [in thise case colonial] government", so discussion of territories prior to, or outside, the occupation or control of the political community established as Canada are not, in fact, Canadian territory.

And you still haven't answered my question, if Canada was established as a British colony in 1867, why do we speak French and have French civil law?

And my final point is that if we are not discussing establishment or formation, but only discussing "Independence from the UK", then why start in 1867? Establishing the Dominion was not a move towards independence, as the Fathers of Confederation made abundantly clear their wish was to remain a part of the British Empire, and of course the act constituting the "Dominion of Canada" specifically states that Canada, its executive authority, and its government are simply to "continue", not be created, and of course as we know Canada in 1867 was a British colony. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "There can be no doubt now that Canada has become a sovereign state. Its sovereignty was acquired in the period between its separate signature of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the Statute of Westminster, 1931". The birth of a movement for independence was during the First World War (see Vimy Ridge), which was officiallized with the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and legislated with the statute of Westminster of 1931. Thus, the first concrete action towards independence was actually the 1926 Balfour Declaration, which kicked off a series of changes towards independence over the following 50 years terminating in 1982. So if we are discussing "Independence from the UK" then we are talking about 1926 to the present (although 1919 to the present at a stretch), not 1867. If we want to start with self-government of a single Canada, then we are talking about 1841 to the present, not 1867. If you want to start with representative government, then its 1791 to the present. trackratte (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

1. I think a more troubling conflation is yours of the colony and of the federation of Canada. It's a very semantic focus that bypasses a look at the actual entities involved, despite your claim to be examining the entity. A name change does not change what a state is (although it may be part of wider changes), and similarly two things with the same name aren't necessarily the same.

2. The French language and law argument doesn't hold. That's due to history and demographics. Why does New Zealand have Maori as an official language if it was established as a British colony? History and demographics. No structure emerges from nothing, and all take something from the system before them.

3. 1867 marked a significant move towards autonomy, due to its establishment as a Dominion within the Empire. It seems odd to leave it out, although your argument does have merit. CMD (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not sure you understand that. I think the first date in the infobox should be 1867. I am not conflating colony and federation. It was trackratte who argue in December 30, 2016 that "must include the date of the establishment of the French colony of Canada, the ceding of this colony to the British Empire, the arising of a domestic Canadian autonomy with Confederation (which saw control of domestic policy and law passed to Canada from the UK), the cessation of Canada as a subordinate colony to one of a state equal in status to the UK in 1931, and finally the passage of Canada, de jure, to fully sovereign state." I do not support this view and I have consistently argued in favour of 1867 as the first date and Confederation as the first date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I was replying to trackette, given that the talkpage has been rearranged so my messages are in this section. Apologies for the confusion. CMD (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. I suspect that the volume of messages is not helping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

CMD, I've labelled your points by number if that is alright with you to make it easier and clearer to respond to. If you do mind my insertion of numbers, of course feel free to remove them.

1. This article is not about the "federation of Canada". This article, quite clearly, is about "Canada" with a scope ranging from 1534 to the present (with a section on pre-history in the same way as nearly every history of Canada textbook I have ever seen). So, I am not too sure if the "semantic focus" is warranted as I am taking the same view in scope as the article itself. I am not talking about the "French Colony of Canada", nor the "Province of Canada", nor the "Dominion of Canada", but am instead talking about the scope of this article, "Canada", which encompasses all of the above as we can plainly see in the article's current and longstanding structure and content. Now that I am reading this, I think this confusion regarding perspective/semantics is actually at the heart of the entire issue. I believe you are seeing only the "Federation of Canada, 1867-2017" and this is the perspective from which you are arguing from, and of course from this perspective you are absolutely right, and everything you are saying makes a great deal of sense. My point is that this article is and always has been significantly larger in scope, which I think you can agree in seeing the article itself.

2. While I do not profess to be an expert in New Zealand history, nor does the decisions of one group of editors in one country bind the editors of another, New Zealand recognized Maori ex post facto, and you're perfectly right, history and demographics have a role to play, and New Zealand has been much more familial in terms of adopting aboriginal symbols and making a concerted national effort at growing together. The difference of course being that French in Canada is not an ex post facto recognition, but a fact of national life which has always existed because "Canada" was established by the French, and then this country called "Canada" was given wholesale from the French to the British who retained French civil law, language, culture, and the Catholic religion. Which is all covered in this article.

3. The claim that 1867 was a significant move towards independence has no backing that I have seen. I have just read through four different sources discussing the reasons behind Confederation, and independence is never mentioned at all. Keeping the British Empire's holdings British against the Americans by banding together however, is one of the primary reasons behind Confederation, along with economic concerns. And you are right, it was a significant event in Canada's history, which is precisely why no one is arguing to leave it out, in fact I've been arguing that it must be included this entire time, just that it was not the starting point of Canadian independence, as the Supreme Court of Canada itself has made abundantly clear. Given the verifiable sources surrounding Confederation and the contemporary reasons behind it (none of which had anything to do with independence, in fact the opposite), as well as definitive sources such as the Supreme Court of Canada explicitly ruling that Confederation was not the start of Canadian independence, I do not see why we would need to continue debating this point. What is clear is that Confederation is one of the most defining moments of Canadian history and it must be included in the infobox, to which I completely agree.

Now, armed with this common understanding, we are able to build a solution. We are able to summarize the scope of the article in the infobox, which Wiki policy states as what the infobox exists for. We are able to do it succinctly with just three points (Establishment in 1534, Confederation in 1867, and Independence from the United Kingdom in 1982). It answers your concerns that Confederation must be included and for succinctness, it answers Northern's concerns in making "independence from the UK" explicitly clear, and it answers my concerns that the scope of this article be reflected in the infobox in line with current policy. Subsequently, I feel very little reason for any further chicanery, and I honestly think now that this difference in understanding regarding the scope of the article ("federation of Canada 1867" vs "Canada" more generally) as the root cause which has been holding us back. Please let me know what you think, keeping in mind that perhaps no one will have exactly what they want, but I do think that this new solution we have found together incorporates all the main concerns, that it is far better than the previous status quo, and that it is even a great deal better than the solution that I had originally proposed that is currently in the main space, ie working together has actually provided a far better solution overall from what was there before, or from what I was able to come up with on my own. trackratte (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Words are not very useful without their meanings. It's fine to say this article is about "Canada", but you have to say what Canada is. The article as you note covers history to the beginning, which makes sense, given it's all history. That doesn't help define the topic. You might have such history in any article about a current country. Similarly, French being part of Canada since its foundation doesn't change this. Say the original French colony was called Quebec, and that in 1867 they picked the name Canada. Canada could still have French law, despite a brand new name. CMD (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but there is a reason why they picked "Canada", and why the Act constituting the Dominion states that Government and Executive Authority in and over Canada is declared to "continue". For example, during the Confederation debates an MP stated "Now I would ask any honourable member of the House how he would feel if he woke up some fine morning and found himself, instead of a Canadian, a Tuponian or a Hochelegander?" when they debated if they should choose a different name once they were joined with the other colonies, and of course the powerful Confederation debates from 1865 pressed forward by John A Macdonald occurred in the Canadian House of Commons, from which he continued to lead the country after Confederation. Quite clearly 1867 was not the creation of an entirely new "Canada", but was an evolution and an expansion where multiple entities joined together to form something new, but new in the sense of a significant change or evolution, not a wholesale creation. Canadian politics carried on, its principle actors (such as Sir John A himself), its principle institutions, its official publication, its systems, its laws, its customs, its language, its culture, and its religion. Once again, I have never said that Confederation was insignificant, or did not result in very real and significant changes, of course it did. However, it was a continuation of what had been there before, and what had been there before was most definitely Canadian. The members of parliament who debated Confederation so passionately, as we can see in the phrase I quoted above, called themselves and were Canadian. Such a thing, a culture/nationality/political entity did not just pop out of thin air on July 1st 1867.

And second, concerning the somewhat separate independence argument, as we can see from constitutional expert Andrew Heard's key paper, "The new Dominion of Canada was a colony; albeit self-governing in domestic matters, but still a colony... Canada was just one part of the whole British Empire, and the foreign policy of the Empire was conducted on behalf of the British Crown by British ministers". Once again, Confederation was a huge event in Canadian history, but not the start of that history, nor the start of Canadian independence. It was a milestone, not the stepping off point. trackratte (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has become far too long and has achieved nothing. (A series of essays to prove expertise in Canadian history does not resolve the issue.) I just started a new Talk topic to vote on a suggestion, that the heading be changed

i.e. I propose that we amend the heading to Establishment of Full Sovereignty Peter K Burian (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

See the newer Talk topic Establishment of Full Sovereignty NOT Establishment from the UK. There is a note there that is important:

    I must confess I changed 'independence' to 'establishment' a couple of years ago on this page, so I thought I would step in. The reason I used this because the country was established through a series of constitutional changes & acts. Apologies for the vigorous debate it has caused. Shire Lord  

Hence, I made the change in our infobox. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-binding straw poll

Please supply your preference for the infobox below, and sign.

• Anything but "independent" That word has certain implications to Amercian readers and it is not what the state of Canada is. Additional reasons given above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see any need to change from what we had before this manufactureversey started. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Establishment or like term. What we are actually discussing here is the birth and rise of a uniquely "Canadian" nation, founded as a French colony and eventually establishing itself to what we know today. A sense of independence was an organic byproduct of the establishment of Canadian "nationhood", not the other way around (ie, the concept of "being Canadian" as opposed to French or British does not correspond to any specific point in time, statutory document, or declaration of independence). Thus, the mentioning of the founding of Canada under the French, and important milestones that followed in 1763, 1791, 1840, 1867, 1926, 1931, 1952, 1965, 1982, etc are all milestones in the establishment of Canada, which is to say what currently constitutes the Canadian nation. Obviously for the purposes of the infobox, only the most salient dates would be taken, such as its initial founding ("birth") under the French, when Canada was ceded to the British, when Canada joined with other British colonies to form the Dominion of Canada, when Canada gained formal equality with the UK, and when Canada severed the last remaining legal links with the UK Parliament. trackratte (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, we're not discussing the birth and rise of a uniquely "Canadian nation" because the article isn't about that. This is squarely about Canada's political independence from the United Kingdom, nothing more. Please see my comments in response to your posting in the sources subsection below. NorthernFactoid (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is clearly not about "Canada's political independence from the United Kingdom, nothing more", but is in fact about a great deal more, and includes the entirety of Canadian history, political evolution, culture, language, etc etc. As can be clearly seen within the article main body, it discusses Canadian "pre-history" in the form of aboriginal inhabitation and Viking landings. It then goes on to talk about English exploration starting in 1497, and discusses the founding of Canada under the French by Jacques Cartier in 1534. It also touches on the Red River Rebellion, Medicare, battles of the Second World War, the Clarity Act and Quebec secession, and a variety of other things pertaining to the Canada which have absolutely nothing to do with "political independence from the United Kingdom". If you would like to see an article with such a narrow focus, you are free to try and start a new article under the title of "Canadian independence from the United Kingdom" or other like title. trackratte (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I never said this article is about Canada's political independence from the United Kingdom. I implied this discussion is about which word (establishment, founding, independence, etc.) is most appropriate to describe the reality of Canada's political independence from Britain. NorthernFactoid (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox, according to WP, is to "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", thus the summary of key facts of Canada's establishment of course include its establishment in 1532 as clearly discussed as a key fact in the article. Second, the "|sovereignty_note =" section of the infobox is for discussing independence, ie full sovereignty, whereas the "Establishment" part of the infobox ("|established_event1 ="), which is the section currently under discussion in this Talk section, exists as you can clearly see at its template page, to outline the "First key event in history of country/territory's status or formation", with the "|established_date" sections following existing for key events thereafter. Thus, your insistence that the infobox should focus exclusively on Canadian independence from the UK is against Wikipedia Policy as it does not "summarize all the key facts" of establishment within the article, and your insistence that the "Establishment" headings of the infobox must not discuss Canada's establishment but instead must only narrowly speak to independence from the UK is once again against the entire point of those sections, as can be plainly seen by the template instructions themselves at the template page. trackratte (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

trackratte, I disagree because your opinion suggests that the infoboxes of all these articles are in contravention of Wikipedia policy. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. The infoboxes of these articles do not summarize all facts mentioned in the articles. Mystery Guyman (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no point in point to other language wiki's, they are not part of this project and have different governance. South Africa wasn't South Africa until 1910 as it was previously the Cape Colony so is in line with its infobox establishment date of 1910, the United States didn't exist until it was established in 1776 so its establishment date is correct in the infobox as it currently stands. Australia was a collection of British colonies such as the colony of Victoria, the Swan River Colony, the colony of Queensland, etc and a single colony known as "Australia" did not exist until 1901, so as far as I'm aware Australia's infobox for its establishment is completely correct. New Zealand is the only one of those you mention which deviates from policy and what I am saying, as the Colony of New Zealand was established in 1841 but the infobox begins its establishment in 1856, perhaps something that can be brought up there, although I do not profess to be expert on any country except my own.

And you misunderstand my point, the purpose of the infobox in general is to summarize the article, the purpose of the establishment lines within the country infobox are to outline the country's establishment, not to provide a complete timeline of every fact mentioned within the article.

As a result, Australia, the United States, and South Africa are all dealt with in the same way I am advocating.

Finally, all of this is moot as nothing in any other article dictates the best way that information should be presented here, as every country has its own unique historical nuance. So just because one country does something one way, does not dictate how Canada will be dealt with in any event. trackratte (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Trackratte, the Union of South Africa was created as a dominion of the British Empire in 1910. So clearly the name South Africa was used to describe contemporary South Africa before independence from Britain. New Zealand was the Colony of New Zealand and was established as such in 1841. Australia was called Australia as early as 1625 [16], long before it too became independent. Remember, the name of the continent and country have always been synonymous. Also, the name Australia featured in the colonies of South Australia [17] and Western Australia [18]. These colonies, of course, united with the colonies of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, and Victoria in 1901 to form contemporary Australia. How is this any different from the "Province of Canada" uniting with the colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in 1867 to form contemporary Canada? NorthernFactoid (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Northern, that was my point, South Africa begins its infobox in 1910 when it was first established as such. Yes for New Zealand, that's what I said. And for Australia, there was no country or colony called Australia, but a collection of disparate colonies, none of which existed as "Australia", thus when these different colonies joined they created a new entity, so it would make sense for the infobox to start there, which it does.

How is this different from the colony of Canada uniting with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? Because this wasn't the creation of "Canada", the 1867 Act which created this union explicitly states that the government and authority of Canada "is to continue", not be created. Thus, the legal act creating the Dominion of Canada clearly expresses a spirit of continuation in addition to the changes brought forth, not a wholesale creation. Besides, the Canadian government existed since 1841 along with the Canada Gazette (official legal publication of all laws, proclamations, etc), and when describing the "History Boundaries of Canada", begins in 1841 (although still somewhat arbitrary as they start with the mention of the 1792 Upper and Lower Canada), which is all to say that saying Canada was created in 1867 is demonstrably false in addition to being somewhat bizarre.

However, I think I may know what is at the root of our difference in perspective in this discussion. There is a distinction to be drawn between talking about only and specifically the event of Confederation and the creation of the specific entity, the "Dominion of Canada" whose governance, authorities, and political system was a continuation of the Province of Canada, and "Canada" more generally. This article is not about Confederation, and it isn't only about the "Dominion of Canada", but instead about "Canada". The difference being one of precise subject and scope, where an article specific only to the "Dominion of Canada" would be so titled and begin in 1867, this article is "Canada" and includes the entire history of Canada from 1534 onwards (and includes a section on prehistory as well). So, you are right in a certain sense if this article was the "Dominion of Canada" whose scope was only and entirely restricted to Confederation and afterwards, however its not and it isn't. So, would this difference in perspective, and now clearly made distinction, be the result of our current impasse? If this difference in perspective and perhaps understanding of terms was the core point of confusion, then perhaps we will be better situated in going forward together.

As such, and as the topic and scope of this article clearly is "Canada" with a scope significantly beyond only the events of 1867 and afterwards, the infobox should therefore reflect this, which is inline with Wiki Policy that the infobox should succinctly summarize the article. As I've said, the entire trajectory of Canada as outlined in the article text can be succinctly summarized in just three points in the infobox, establishment in 1534, Confederation in 1867, and full independence from the UK in 1982 (obviously 3 is a minimum, it could be more if we wanted). In this way we respect policy, we encapsulate the entire article, we talk about "establishment" as this portion of the infobox is intended for, and we clearly state Canada's independence from the UK date. As far as I can see you and I both should be perfectly happy with this solution as it incorporates my concerns vis a vis policy and the scope of the article reflected in the infobox and the point of establishment, and it satisfies your point that "independence from the UK" must be clearly reflected, while simultaneously being extremely succinct. Given this, and the complete incorporation of your concerns being answered for and included, are we now on the same page going forward? trackratte (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The Act states "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." [19] I understand this to mean the parliament at Westminster in London, not a continuation of a federal "Canadian government" that never existed prior to 1867. As far as I can tell, Confederation created an entirely new country (and with that, a new federal parliament): "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly." [20] "Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act (meaning any previous entities called "Canada" were dissolved and therefore unrelated to the Act). [21] It would appear other Wikipedia editors are also of this persuasion: "The Province of Canada ceased to exist at Canadian Confederation on July 1, 1867, when it was redivided into the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec." [22] Consequently, I feel this article unambiguously refers to the "Dominion of Canada" created in 1867. NorthernFactoid (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"...Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested...", there are two clauses. The fact that authority is vested in the Queen does not preclude the former clause that the Canadian government and authority of and over Canada is to continue. This was especially important as the British (and therefore at the time the Canadian) Constitution was almost entirely unwritten, so this statement essentially ensures a continuation of the Constitution of Canada from the Province of Canada (and to an extent the British Empire more generally)to the new entity, the Dominion of Canada. For example, the position of Prime Minister does not exist anywhere written in the document, nor any words outlining Canada as democratic, etc etc which were all continued on unbroken from before. Essentially, the "Government of Canada" was elevated to the federal level, the governments of Ontario and Quebec were created wholesale, and the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia carried on as they were.

I do not know why you are quoting the creation of the Dominion of Canada, that is not under dispute. The "Province of Canada" was not "dissolved" any more than the other colonies were, it "evolved" with the other two to constitute the newly established Dominion. It is for this reason that it's government carried on, with the principle actors and leaders from the Canadian Parliament for the most part simply carrying on within the expanded Canadian (Dominion) Parliament.

So it is unclear to me what you disagree on, that the government and authority in and over Canada did not continue on forward as the source explicitly states? Or some other matter? trackratte (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Trackratte, the subsection in question explicitly refers to "executive power". You have to consider the passage in its entirety: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." This only means London, not Ottawa, was to continue to retain ultimate authority over the new dominion. Remember, the Act created a new country and the name of the new country was to mean Canada as constituted under the Act (i.e. the Canada of 1867). You talk of a "Canadian government" and its continued authority, but my point is that such a government did not exist prior to 1867 - so how could anything "continue" when the Canada (its parliament, federal institutions, division of powers and responsibilities, etc.) to which we and the article refer was nonexistent until the passage of the 1867 Act? What you're saying is that Canadian colonies like the "Province of Canada" evolved into Canada, whereas Australian colonies like the "Province of [South] Australia" [23] didn't evolve into Australia, but rather "Australia" abruptly came to be in 1901. You're saying the Province of Canada evolved, while the Province of [South] Australia ceased to exist. That makes no sense. The Province of Canada and the Province of [South] Australia both ceased to exist as colonies in their own right and became new subnational entities of new countries (if you disregard the colonial names "Canada" and "Australia", the legal process by which this all occurred becomes much clearer - call them colonies "C" and "A", and visualize them becoming provinces of Canada and states of Australia respectively). So I disagree with your opinion on the "founding" of Australia, and I disagree with your opinion that this article isn't only about the "Dominion of Canada". The Dominion's history is important, but the point is that the article is unambiguously about the Canada founded in 1867. NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

NorthernFactoid presents the more accurate analysis. The analysis presented by trackratte is legally erroneous because the current federal Government of Canada is not merely an elevated form of the Province of Canada's colonial administration. The Constitution Act provided for the creation of an entirely new government structure, and thus country. At Confederation, the colonies of 'Canada', New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were dissolved. The provincial governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec were created wholesale, and an entirely new federal government—the current government of Canada—was simultaneously created. Mystery Guyman (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Northern and Mystery, thanks for the feedback. There is a great deal of confusion in this discussion between country, state, and nation which is leading us to talk past each other by discussing different concepts without realizing it.

country. "nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory". The Dominion of Canada (1867) was a new country, this is not in dispute by me or anyone else that I am aware of. The colony of the United Province of Canada had its own nation (the Canadians), its own government (Government of Canada), and its own territory, so was also by definition, a country. The term country is notoriously confusing as many people confuse the term with "state" and independence/sovereignty.

state. "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. Where a country is geographically based ("a particular territory"), a state is a "political community" that is independent of geography (ie Canada as a state existed prior to the joining of British Columbia, and if British Columbia were to separate today, Canada as a state would continue to exist unchanged, although the country would be different.

nation. "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory". A nation is a collection of people. For example, John A Macdonald and his contemporaries called themselves and were proud Canadians prior to 1867. For example, it is ludicrous to suggest that Canadians magically appeared as a national identity in 1867, and we have countless reliable sources speaking about Canadian people and culture prior to 1867.

Thus, country is a geographically based entity occupying a particular territory, a state is a political community, and a nation is a group of people.

The Dominion of Canada was a new country, but it was still a British Colony, see constitutional expert Dr. Andrew Heard's work, "The new Dominion of Canada was a colony; albeit self-governing in domestic matters, but still a colony...Canada was just one part of the whole British Empire".

The Dominion of Canada was not a new state per se. Its constitution was a continuation of that of the Province of Canada which was itself closely mirrored on the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom. As this was the first written part of the constitution (large parts of Canada's constitution remain unwritten today, such as the position of prime minister), the unwritten principles and the mechanisms of authority and governance were explicitly carried forward. Ie. the office of the crown, the governor, the prime minister, cabinet, the House of Commons, rules and procedures, and how instruments are officially promulgated (the Canada Gazette) remained unchanged. This is what I mean when the government was largely carried forward. There are also the practical constraints of the time, for example when one goes to bed and wakes up the next morning, it is impossible to have created a new political entity wholesale, so practically speaking, the business of governing the country and the mechanics of how this was accomplished (and the people involved) remained essentially unchanged from the 30th of June to the 1st of July, as one can read for delving deeper into the actual contemporary accounts.

The concept of the Canadian nation from the 30th of June to the 1st of July 1867 of course was completely unchanged. The prime minister still felt himself just as Canadian as before. Once again, it is preposterous to suggest that a difference of a single day can extinguish an entire nationality and magically create an entirely new one at the stroke of midnight.

In this way, the Dominion of Canada was a continuation as a nation, mostly as a state (evolution), and was the evolution in the sense of combining with two other geographic entities to form a new country. Now, this article is not just about geography, or a nation, or a political community, but of course about all of these things. Nor is this article restricted to only 1867 and afterwords, as the content clearly discusses everything beforehand.

In this way, restricting this article to only a "country" (ignoring nationality and state), and to only post-1867, would be a major disservice to our readers. The scope of this article currently covers Canada as a nation, as a state, and as a country from the 15th century onward.

Now, normally such constitutional, political, and legal intricacies are far beyond the scope or understanding of standard histories or historians, and only delved into by constitutional and legal scholars (such as Dr. Heard, Dr. Smith, Dr. Lagasse, and others). However, as the Canadian Constitution is my area of expertise, it is what I spend most of my time on in Wikipedia, such as this article here. Which is all to say that in order to productively edit such a complex and deep issue, a great deal of learning must occur, and no coherent and productive discussion can reasonably occur without a proper understanding of the terms we are using.

How this impacts the topic of this discussion, the infobox, entirely depends on what we want to do with the infobox, which I feel should be dealt with below in a more deliberate fashion, as we are all trying to impose our own version all at once, and as we can plainly see we are using terms in different ways and are dealing with a million issues all at once, and thus we can not all agree on a million different interdependent issues at once. Subsequently, the fact that we have all more or less been talking in circles is perfectly normal ha. Look forward to hearing both your thoughts. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, trackratte - you're the only confused person here. The bottom line is that your interpretation is incorrect. NorthernFactoid (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What are you referring to? trackratte (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

responses to the straw poll

I'll give this a few days, and then I'll make the change from "establishment" to "independence" (unless compelling reasons to avoid the word independence are given). Wikipedia is not about how someone personally feels or being right. As editors, we should strive for factual accuracy and consistency. Personal views on Americans (as if they're the only people on Earth) and the American education system are not valid reasons to avoid making changes. As you have just implied, let's not be so introspective. NorthernFactoid (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Not the correct section and no, you won't. I have shown that there is not support for the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your response is not part of the straw poll so I have excluded it yet again to avoid confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Polls are not the way to achieve consensus on Wikipedia, discussion is. There seems to be no consensus for change here so unless there is consensus there shouldn't be any changes to this section. See WP:Consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 20:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is why I stated it was non-binding. I just wanted to get an idea where people stood. I certainly did not want to assume people had two positions (something that appears to have happened when different editors review the previous discussions and can be seen above the !VOTE). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There was no consensus to make the infobox even more confusing than it initially was, yet it was recently changed. If anyone has a credible counterargument to make for avoiding the words "independence from the United Kingdom", now is the time to make it. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone object to "Independence (gradual) from the United Kingdom"? Key dates (Confederation, Statute of Westminster, and 1982) would be listed accordingly, demonstrating the process of Canada's independence. It seems like this might be a fair compromise. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that the French & Spanish Wikipedia entries correctly note Canada's "independence" from the United Kingdom. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canad%C3%A1 NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia projects are not relevant to this discussion. What takes place or happens on other projects is not relevant to the English Wikipedia. Similarly what happens in other articles is also not generally relevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lets keep it to this article and discussions around the English Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." The French project is especially relevant to Canada because French is one of Canada's two official languages. NorthernFactoid (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not that interesting considering those advocating for other words are discussing implications, which sometimes don't carry over between different English-speaking societies, let alone languages. CMD (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I speak French and Spanish. The word independence in those languages (and societies) carries the same connotation as it does in English. There's a lot of pigheadedness in this (English) discussion. NorthernFactoid (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also interesting that the German Wikipedia entry lists Canada's establishment ("founding" to be surgically precise) or "Gründung" (albeit somewhat incorrectly as "Canada" was established before 1841) and its independence or "Unabhängigkeit" beginning with Confederation up to the Canada Act of 1982. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada NorthernFactoid (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As I noted, there are clear differences in opinion regarding its implications among the English speakers posting above. That's a pretty simple observation of the discussion, not pigheadedness. CMD (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Look, I've read every single comment in this section. Walter Görlitz is passionately opposed to any change, but I don't get that impression from anyone else. As editors, we should be quick to denounce structurally deficient arguments like Americans may become confused over the wording of a particular entry because of America's "introspective" education system. Give me a break. Is that the sort of thing that passes for informed discussion on Wikipedia these days? I refuse to believe so. I think most other editors simply want an infobox that demonstrates Canada's gradual march to complete independence. I think this is perfectly reasonable, which is why I have put forward a proposal that satisfies the need to call Canada's political reality what it is (independent) while satisfying the concerns of other editors who wish to elucidate Canada's gradual process of independence. I feel "Independence (gradual) from the United Kingdom" followed by the three events (Confederation, Statute of Westminster, and the Canada Act) that gradually resulted in Canada's independence works well because it addresses all principal concerns mentioned above. I'm optimistic a compromise can be reached. NorthernFactoid (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

When we discuss content, we are discussing correctly. When you discuss editors, as you did here and misrepresented my position, you are violating WP:NPA. Don't do it again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Stick to the issue at hand, please. I questioned the validity of your argument that Americans may become confused over the word independence because of their "introspective" education system. That's not a personal attack. You have engaged in personal attacks here with other editors, I have not. NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has become far too long and has achieved nothing. I just started a new Talk topic to vote on a suggestion, that the heading be changed

i.e. I propose that we amend the heading to Establishment of Full Sovereignty

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Lots of guess work and personal POV's above. Lets work on regurgitating the source no one has brought up. Lets compile sources here see what they say.--Moxy (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A fair and reasonable point. I'll start things off by providing an excellent source. "The Dominions, however, were reaffirming publicly to the international community their political independence from the British government even though the Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931, had granted the former colonies full legal independence and had declared that the British and Dominion parliaments were equal in status. Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms." http://www.revparl.ca/27/2/27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf NorthernFactoid (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster: Canada's Declaration of Independence.

'In the fall of 1929, Canada's Minister of Justice, Ernest Lapointe, traveled to England. He took with him Dr. O. D. Skelton, the country's top public servant. When they were done their negotiations, they had extracted an undertaking from their British hosts. Canada would have its independence from the British Empire.' [24] Mystery Guyman (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Asserting that the Statute of Westminster equates to "Canada'a Declaration of Independence", is a gross simplification and a misrepresentation of the contemporary situation. In the article from the Canadian Parliamentary Review brought forward by NortherFactoid above, it speaks to how even in the 1950s Canada was reaffirming and continuing to "assert" its independence. Don't forget that Canadian citizenship didn't exist until 1947, an officially entitled Canadian monarch not until 1952, that Canada's colonial flag under the British empire (Red ensign) was in use until 1965, and of course constitutional authority was vested with the UK until 1982. Once again showing that the development of a separate Canadian "nation" was a very gradual affair in step with a rising sense of independence. Thus, there is no clear line when the Canadian "nation" became a distinct concept from the French or British nations, or when Canadians felt independent. Subsequently, the entire concept of independence is missing the point, what we are really discussing here is the birth and rise of a "Canadian" nation. A corresponding sense of independence from any other country is a byproduct of this, not the other way around. trackratte (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Are we talking about facts or what people feel and believe? I think the provided sources do an excellent job of supporting the case for "independence from the United Kingdom." I also think Mystery Guyman sums it up pretty well: as of 2017, Canada is an independent state - we don't need one specific date or event to validate this because we all agree independence occurred gradually (and the infobox demonstrates this). You're conflating the different concept of national identity with the action(s) of political independence. We could spend forever discussing and debating when Canada became a nation (in the emotional sense) and when Canadians felt "Canadian", but this discussion/conflict isn't about that. This discussion is about the current state of Canada becoming independent from the United Kingdom in the bare-bones political sense. NorthernFactoid (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Facts. Trackratte did a better job of explaining the facts than selective reading of government documents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Walter, God himself could tell you the most appropriate wording is independence from the United Kingdom and you still wouldn't accept it. The fact of the matter is, Canada is politically independent of British rule. This is indisputable, and your opinion doesn't change this. The Canadian Encyclopedia and the source I provided aren't "selective reading of government documents." Try again. NorthernFactoid (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I haven't seen the name of God used in vain for a long time. I would actually agree with God, and you, NorthernFactoid are nowhere close to God. So say a prayer and ask for divine intervention, but don't take it on yourself to misuse the name of God in an argument, at least not with me.

Canada is politically independent of British rule. It's politically independent of American rule. It's politically independent of Latvian rule. It's politically independent of the rule of the other 180 odd nations on earth. However, if you were to use a term that one of those nations has imbued with special meaning, the people of that nation will not have the first clue what your status is. I don't care to cater to Americans, and that, whether you like it or not, is the problem with using the word "independent" in the infobox. I'm sorry you don't like it, but your preference will in no way sway me to use a word that would convey misinformation to a large percentage of our readers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"However, if you were to use a term that one of those nations has imbued with special meaning, the people of that nation will not have the first clue what your status is. I don't care to cater to Americans, and that, whether you like it or not, is the problem with using the word "independent" in the infobox." Sources. You need to provide sources that corroborate your baseless assumptions. Saying "God himself" is not taking God's name in vain, but I suppose unworldly religious fundamentalists (anti-vaxxers too?) might think differently. NorthernFactoid (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Northern, you are quite clearly attacking strawmen. No one is arguing that Canada is not currently independant, so constantly arguing that "as of 2017, Canada is an independent state" is a complete waste of yours and others' time. Second, this discussion is not about "political independence from the United Kingdom" and neither is this article, so once again your arguments to that effects is simply the attacking of a strawman, and if you would like to have such a discussion then simply start a new heading on this Talk page to attempt to do so by changing the scope of this article. This current discussion is about how to best reflect Canada's evolution within the infobox, which has currently been done in the same way as a variety of other countries' infoboxes here on Wikipedia, which is under the title of "Establishment" or "Formation" with the initial date it was formed or established, along with with most pertinent dates in its evolution. From a commonsense perspective it makes a great deal of sense in that it simply starts from the beginning and flows to the present in a logical fashion. Some countries, such as the United States, start with their date of independence because that is actually their first date, for example no entity known as the "United States of America" existed prior to that date. So, for the United States infobox starting in such a fashion makes sense, however, for countries such as Germany, Italy, England, Scotland, Canada, etc etc these named entities existed prior to their modern configurations, and thus their dates simply start at their beginning. In Canada's case, Canada was founded by the French in 1532, ceded to the British, and then gradually came to be distinctly "Canadian" as opposed to British. As you can see at this Globe and Mail article published yesterday, even in the 1960s there were large numbers of Canadians who simply saw themselves and Canada as British. Thus, Canada's independence wasn't "won" from the British, nor was it actually even "given" by the British, it was Canada and Canadians themselves who were the sticking point, and who were seeing themselves as British. Thus the reasons why it took so long to have a national as opposed to a colonial flag, and to finally patriate the Constitution, which Britain had been perfectly willing to do decades prior. And to quote the article, "It’s worth remembering how new this all was. We still remained [in 1967], in important ways, a colony. In 1967, Canadian citizenship had only existed for 20 years – before January 1, 1947, everyone in Canada was a British subject. The 1947 law creating Canadian citizenship declared in its main clause that “a Canadian citizen is a British subject” (this would remain in place until 1977). That idea was still hotly defended by many in the Ottawa of 1967: The Progressive Conservative leadership still opposed Canadian citizenship, and the flag, and the anthem. There was still a sizable political faction in Canada who supported the idea that all Canadians were simply a slightly different, less important flavour of British people". Clearly then, the infobox should reflect the actual article it represents, which does not begin in 1867 and does not only focus on independence from the UK, but instead encomasses Canada's entire history from its initial founding as "Canada" in 1534 until the present, and which focuses on the ensemble of Canadian history, identity, culture, and politics, amongst others. trackratte (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I’m not attacking a straw man at all. This discussion is about political independence from the United Kingdom and nothing more. The discussion started that way, progressed that way, and continued that way until YOU decided to try and make it about the totally unrelated concept of “national identity” (all because you’re opposed to the wording “independence from the United Kingdom”). In fact, yours is the straw man argument because the info box you’ve unilaterally designed still doesn’t demonstrate the development of a Canadian identity, which is what you continue to bang on about here. Bottom line: I don’t support the current info box’s design, CMD doesn’t, and I presume Mystery Guyman and Air Light don’t either. Understand and accept this. The reason I mentioned Canada’s independence as of 2017 is because the article is about the Canada of 2017 - it’s not about colonies pre-Confederation. And by the way, Walter Gorlitz questioned Canada’s independence: “Is it an independent country? I don't have any references that support that claim.” Attempting to compare Canada’s independence to the founding of Old World European "nations" (England, Scotland, France, etc. are nations in the traditional ethnic sense; Canada is not) that were never colonies belonging to imperial powers is a non sequitur. Canada’s independence compares to Australia’s, New Zealand’s and South Africa’s. And if you’d care to look, South Africa’s info box DOES NOT mention any pre-British history as a Dutch colony because the info boxes of these articles are not meant to showcase the entire histories of countries; they’re intended to give a very brief overview of when and the process of how modern states became independent of imperial rule. NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't about "political independence from the United Kingdom and nothing more", the establishment section of the infobox is called "establishment_event =" and exists to outline key events in the country's establishment, the previous section within the infobox called "sovereignty_note" would be where you would focus on independence from the UK. Thus, the section we are discussing is about the "establishment" of Canada, as can be clearly seen from the template instructions themselves. So the narrow and exclusive focus of your arguments on Canadian independence from the UK is entirely your own construction, which no one is actually arguing against. I think you have the two sections of the infobox confused. There is a sovereignty (ie independence) section, and there is an establishment (ie formation) section, the two sections are distinct and different. Your arguments only make sense if you are talking about the sovereignty section, which we are currently not.

And once again, this article is about Canada which as you can plainly see in the article, includes its establishment and evolution from 1532 onwards. Wikipedia policy for infoboxes clearly states that the purpose of the infobox is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article". trackratte (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz's edit warring

Walter Görlitz has been notified of his edit warring to this article's info box. In the spirit of WP:GF, I'm giving Mr Gorlitz 24 hours to undo his revert, otherwise he'll be reported. I reverted the info box back to its original disputed form because there was no consensus for Trackratte's initial change made on December 30th, 2016. Editors are free to present arguments for any change on the talk page, but no one is free to implement change as they see fit and then act as though consensus is required to revert back to original form. If that were how it worked, I’d change “establishment from the United Kingdom” to “independence from the United Kingdom” immediately and insist on consensus before any reverts to my edit could be made. NorthernFactoid (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

NorthernFactoid has also been warned. Feel free to take to 3RR now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Gents, for the record all editors were against the former status quo, thus there was clear consensus for its change. Thus, after a great deal of time spent bickering, including a pause on the conversation due to personal attacks, I made a bold edit on the 30th of December, which was my first involvement here on this topic.

On that same day user Walter stated "looks good to me".

User Moxy stated "Well done....Good solution."

User CMD stated that he disagreed "with including the pre-confederation events", however implied that he agree with the overall edit regarding the title change, which was the actual subject of the debate for which the bold edit was made.

No further comments were made that day, thus within the first day of the edit being made, roughly 6/6 editors were in consensus that the former status quo was unacceptable, and 4/4 editors were in agreement that the bold edit was a "good solution", with one editor believing that adjustments to the dates would be ideal.

The following day, one editor wanted the former status quo restored, bringing our count to 4/5 editors for the bold edit, and 1 against. After this point in the conversation it gets a bit hectic with other editors chiming in about due process and alot of personal attacks and discussion about American centric POV, the American educational system, etc etc.

What is currently clear is that there is zero consensus to return to the previous status quo, and that there are a number of editors who support the current solution or a variation thereof, and a number of editors who would rather focus on independence rather than establishment. However, as I have just outlined today, I think this latter stance is largely predicated on confusion regarding the template itself, specifically confusion between the "sovereignty_note" section which is where one would discuss sovereignty/independence, and the "establishment_event" and "establishment_date" sections which is where one would discuss the 'key events regarding the establishment or formation of the country' as can be seen in the template instructions page. Subsequently, the current solution is inline with WikiPolicy (purpose of the infobox is to summarize key details within the article text), and the template instructions, whereas focussing only on independence is not line with WP (does not summarize the establishment text within the article) and is against the purpose of the template sections (using the "establishment" section as the "sovereignty" section). Thus, the present situation seems to be that a majority of editors are fine with the "establishment" section being used to summarize the establishment of Canada inline with the actual purpose of this section clearly described within the template instructions, and as a result the discussion has evolved to one of which exact dates should be included, which is really a matter for a new section of this Talk page to be started. trackratte (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I did start a new Talk topic this morning, to revive the discussion. The term "establishment" is simply not the one that is appropriate to cover the Steps to Self-government. Granted, Independence is not the correct term either. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Canada is Not fully independent from Britain. There are still a few remaining clauses, some unpracticed that link Canada to the Uk. Canda is still legally a Dominion of the United Kingdom. Independance is an inapproptate word in this case and should be refraised to establisment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnreid (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Was the British North America Act replaced by Acts in 1982?

@User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz We have two distinct issues re: the BNA.

The Government of Canada was my source for making that addition to the article. Not sure if I had explained it correctly (I had meant to say that In the UK, the Canada Act replaced the BNA):

After much political debate and negotiation in Canada, the British Parliament passed the Canada Act in March 1982. This act replaced the BNA Act and transferred all legislative authority to Canada, including the power to make changes to the Constitution. http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/proclamation-constitution-act-1982/Pages/proclamation-constitution-act-1982.aspx

Did Canada's Constitution Act, 1982 replace the BNA? No, but...

The British North America Acts 1867–1975 are the original names of a series of Acts at the core of the constitution of Canada. They were enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of Canada. In Canada, some of the Acts were amended or repealed by the Constitution Act, 1982. British North America Acts - Wikipedia Peter K Burian (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Not sure who had written the text to indicate that Canada's Constitution Act received royal assent on March 29, 1982. It was the UK's Canada Act that did. (I revised as necessary).

The Canada Act, 1982 [passed by the UK Parliament] .... received Royal Assent from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second on March 29, 1982. http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2602

While the Canada Act 1982 received royal assent on March 29, 1982 in London, it was not until the Queen visited Canada ... Canada Act 1982 - Wikipedia

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Have restored article....without scholarly sources nothing should be changed. Best not to guess at Government documents. Not sure why after decades this is now a problem. At this point to avod back and forth editing all of these types of changes should be talked about here first. -- Moxy (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What am I guessing at? I quoted a government source above (Talk) and in the article.

Did my edit suggest that the Canadian Act replaced the BNA? I don't recall but User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz implied that it did. So he deleted that. No problem.

The Government of Canada says: After much political debate and negotiation in Canada, the British Parliament passed the Canada Act in March 1982. This act replaced the BNA Act and transferred all legislative authority to Canada, including the power to make changes to the Constitution. http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/proclamation-constitution-act-1982/Pages/proclamation-constitution-act-1982.aspx Peter K Burian (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Parliament of the UK says that Canada's Constitution Act 1982 replaced the BNA. Interesting. I just found this:

Page 14-15, ... on 17 April 1982, Queen Elizabeth II signed the Constitution Act 1982, which incorporated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.99 The Act replaced the BNA Act and transferred all legislative authority to Canada, including the power to make changes to the Constitution.100

Source: National Bills of Rights: International Examples - Parliament UK

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2016.../LLN-2016-0010.pdf 19 Feb 2016 - 5.2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Provisions . ...... British North America Act 1867 and Statute of Westminster 1931. In 1867, the .... incorporated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.99 The Act replaced the BNA Act .... 107 Constitution Act 1982, s 33; and Robert Blackburn, Towards a ... Peter K Burian (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A secondary source, such as a history book, would be better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a book with this info.

But the Research (also a secondary source) listed by the Government of Canada, and the Parliament of the UK in their article, is also a secondary source.

The Parliament of the UK article cites the Government of Canada in their footnote 100: This is what the Canadian government says in the cited article: After much political debate and negotiation in Canada, the British Parliament passed the Canada Act in March 1982. This act replaced the BNA Act and transferred all legislative authority to Canada, including the power to make changes to the Constitution. (The British parliament article is vague as to which act did so.) The bottom line in my view is that the British Act replaced the BNA. However, this content was removed from the Wikipedia article so it is only of academic interest now. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@User:Moxy Where does Wikipedia say that only scholarly sources are acceptable.

What counts as a reliable source Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Are all of the sources in Parliament of Canada, for example, scholarly? Peter K Burian (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact your unaware of any scholars on this subject is very concerning. Is this a new topic for you? pls note the reversal today was to one of your versions.....so not sure what your complaining about now. Pls explain what you what changed? What is the problem.?--Moxy (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

At no time did I complain that someone reverted my edit (the effect of the 1982 Act on the BNA).

16:57, 13 February 2017‎ Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (185,356 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (tinkered with wording, but deleted unsourced quotation; inaccurate; the BNA 1867 was not replaced; continues to be the first part of the Constitution.)

The above edit led me to start the discussion of the topic. And I did not revert the edit to insert the BNA discussion again.

Where does Wikipedia say that only scholarly sources are acceptable.

In any event, I agree that where other sources seem to disagree on an issue, a scholarly source is the best solution. I cannot find any on-line and have not had time to go beyond a Google search.Peter K Burian (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

According to @User:Moxy: ....without scholarly sources nothing should be changed Nothing? Really? Do the Administrators agree? Peter K Burian (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point i think its best you propose any changes here. -- Moxy (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I am simply suggesting a secondary source. Doesn't need to be a textbook, but they're usually the best general sources and easiest to find. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading through this, I'm left unsure as to what's being discussed. Is it the fate of the British North America Acts in Britain? Or what happened to them in Canada?

I'd also ask: Is there anything in any law that repeals the BNAs? If not, they still exist. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Odd few weeks for the lead..last weeks edits where to make the year 1534 the most inportant with naming people, now 1982 again with naming people in the lead. Was there something in the news lately.....why is the formation date being debated as of late? Not sure why we hAve walls oF text for these to points. I see Australia is also having the same debates. --Moxy (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've come to believe it's linked to the phases of the Moon.

Regardless, to put to bed any question of whether the Canada Act 1982 replaced the BNAs in Canada: the Constitution Act 1982, in its schedule, amends the names of the British North America Acts to the Constitution Acts. Thus, the documents remain a part of the Canadian constitution, only renamed in 1982. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup any high school graduate should kown this fact...who would you say are the most proment scholars in this field? Let's link some real sources for our readers....these Gov sites change the wording ever time we have a new goverment. Not good for students researching this topic.--Moxy (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Miesianicial is right. The 1982 Act was the last in a series of acts of the Westminster Parliament in force in Canada. It lists which previous acts remain part of the constitution, including the 1867 act, and adds a charter of rights and amending formula and a few other things. You can read it here. TFD (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. There were two reasons I deleted that passage: it was a quotation without any attribution, and also it was factually incorrect. The Canada Act 1982 is part of the Constitution of Canada, but it did not replace the BNA 1867, only re-named it the Constitution Act, 1867. The CA1867 remains in force, as Miesianicial and The Four Deuces comment. It is the foundational part of the Constitution, setting up the country, establishing the federal Parliament and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as well as allocating the legislative powers between Parliament and the provinces. I don't know the context of the quoted passage, which apparently comes from the British government, but I do not think we should include wrong information in the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

OK so 4 out of 5 agree....Buzfuz.....take another crack at the wording.....I will upgrade the sources for us after I find the best one( have to read 4 books first ).--Moxy (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've always understood it, the 1982 Act was merely amendments to the BNA. BTW Peter, you're gonna have to learn how to indent & link to sources properly. I'm finding your posts difficult to read & understand. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Canada Act 1982 on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website. It says, "The Constitution Act, 1982 set out in Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted." (Schedule A is a French translation of the Canada Act 1982, there are no other schedules.) Schedule B among other things renames the BNA 1867 as the Constitution Act, 1867." I do not know why Schedule B is referred to as an Act. It could be because it was written by British lawyers while the Schedule was written by Canadians. TFD (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The statement that the 1867 Act was replaced by the 1982 Act is clearly incorrect. The 1982 Act itself lists the 1867 Act as part of the Constitution. Although as Peter Hogg and the Supreme Court have stated, this is not an exhaustive list as there is much of the constitution which is not listed, the fact of the written documents enumerated being part of the written constitution is not a matter of editorial debate but is thoroughly entrenched fact. Some further sourced info as well:

• "The Canadian Constitution is composed of written and unwritten statutes, customs, judicial decisions, and tradition. The written part of the Constitution consists of the Constitution Act, 1867, ... and the Constitution Act, 1982," (Library of Parliament)
• A more nuanced essay by the Chief Justice of Canada, on the unwritten Canadian constitution "When we think about what counts as constitutional law, we generally look exclusively to two sources: the text of the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. As any first-year student will learn in constitutional law, this gaze is an under-inclusive one".
• And another from the Chief Justice which explains how the 1982 Act "reaffirmed the principles upon which the Confederation of 1867 had been based". trackratte (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Should all citations have been deleted from the lede?

22:17, 11 February 2017‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (remove sources from lead as per FA norms ...move them to the article where we say more about this point)

Was that reasonable? Many Wikipedia articles have citations in the lede. For example, see Australia.

Granted, the user who deleted the citations from the lede did add them to the body of the article. But should they have been removed from the lede? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No need to jam sources in the lead as they are simply distracting. Best to follow FA norms that follow WP:CITELEAD - WP:LEADCLUTTER - "Australia" is not a good FA example....as the lead covers stats not in the article..thus needs some. Good leads have no need for detailed info nor sources MOS:INTRO. --Moxy (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, some of the lede contains statements that may be debated. About the queen and sovereignty. But we do have links to other Wikipedia articles covering those topics, so perhaps citations are not necessary. I am not certain about this.

WP:LEAD: Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Peter K Burian (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfect so you understand? The information that is there has no need for sources as the info is covered in the article. I understand you make think that this is the most important part of the lead thus must need sources because of the editwar ...but for most it has no more weight then the rest of the lead that has sources for all in the article. As you can see we work hard not to clutter the lead here as per FA norms. Pls remember most readers will only ever read the lead, thus it should be as simple as possible and the most accessible and readable text of the article....not jammed with 3 sources for one fact that is already sourced in the article. --Moxy (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course I understand all of the concepts; for 15 years, I made my living writing magazine articles. The little blue numbers that we use to denote a citation really do not clutter the content, IMHO. I am simply not certain that none of the content of the lede deserves a citation. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I will be honest here about the sources.. can we not find some academic sources for this...not a fan of low levels sources to begin with. Government website and news papers is not the best sources we can give our readers. I will look for some scholarly sources that lead our readers to extensive information over wed links that just provide a source for the fact. I guess David E. Smith or Stephen, Newman would be best in this case.--Moxy (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The policy is that citations should be used in the lead for all "challengeable material". What is "challengeable" or not is governed by editorial consensus, however, if a given part of the lead has been routinely questioned or disputed, then one would reason that the material is in fact "challengeable". The need for providing readers with adequate sourcing and a means of finding further third-party information needs to be balanced against clutter. While small superscripted blue numbers are not clutter on their own, they quickly become burdensome when every sentence has three or more of them.

And as someone has already stated, the lead is often the only portion of the article that is read. Subsequently, it not only must provide a cohesive summary of the article that is able to stand on its own, but also "challengeable material" may fall prey to edit wars much more often simply because there is no reference. The fact that the statement is referenced within the main body is of no help if the majority of readers only read the lead. That being said, if something is bluelinked and that linked article explains everything with sources, a separate citation is likely unnecessary. In addition, if something is thoroughly sourced in the main body, anything more than an explanatory footnote or the single highest quality citation available is likely overkill/undue clutter. For something that is highly contentious and/or complex, what has worked elsewhere is a single note which explains the situation and where several citations are included within the note, providing the best of both worlds in terms of avoiding clutter but at the same time providing the reader with a much deeper understanding of the issue and a large variety of verifiable sources.

As for sources, I would add Andrew Heard, Eugene Forsey, Kevin MacLeod, Philippe Lagassé, Patrick Monahan, Adam Dodek, and/or Peter Hogg if the "challengeable material" revolves around legal or constitutional statements as Peter alludes to above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackratte (talk • contribs) 04:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources are not required in the lede if the statements are supported in article. See {{Citation needed lead}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Obviously they are not required, as WP:Lead states the lead must conform to WP:V and citations in the lead are "neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article". Which is all to say that "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none". As I state above, the crux is forming a consensus around what, if anything, is currently controversial, as they "may require citations". If the first test (controversiality) is determined in the affirmative, then the second test is of balance (is level of controversy "worth" having citations within the lead, particularly given the conventions surrounding FA articles). I am simply laying out the process, and reiterating that citations in the lead are neither required nor prohibited in Wikipedia, so saying that there absolutely must or must not have citations in the lead is not true and is ultimately counter-productive as both stances are polar extremes and both stances are not supported by policy. Instead, a rational discussion based on the two test model (determination of controversiality, and then of balance) are more likely result in productive benefit to the project. trackratte (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct spelling of "sovereignty"

It is not spelled "sovereignity"

Wikipedia's spell check confirms that. Also see Sovereignty

I wonder why my correct spelling was revised to the incorrect spelling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&diff=next&oldid=765298897 Revision as of 17:37, 13 February 2017

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It was likely caught up in another change. The misspelling, sovereignity, is no longer in the article so it's moot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Establishment of Full Sovereignty NOT Establishment from the UK

How does the term establishment make sense in this context? Ok, it was not Independence from the UK but it was not simply Establishment. Establishment of what? Establishment of full self-governance, or establishment of full sovereignty.

Patriation is associated with the establishment of full sovereignty.

Canada Act 1982: Canada has complete sovereignty as an independent country and the Queen's role as monarch of Canada is separate from her role as the British monarch or the monarch of any of the other Commonwealth realms. |url=http://www.revparl.ca/27/2/27n2_04e_trepanier.pdf |title=Some Visual Aspects of the Monarchical Tradition |last=Trepanier |first=Peter |date=2004 |website=Canadian Parliamentary Review |publisher=Canadian Parliamentary Review (pdf)

*I propose that we amend the heading to Establishment of Full Sovereignty Peter K Burian (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would not use an article about the dress the Queen wore as a source for Canadian consitutional history. The separateness of the queen of Canada and the UK was determined in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Ex p Indian Association of Alberta [1982] QB 892, before patriation was allowed. Even then the UK parliament had no right to unilaterally amend the Canadian constitution or to withhold amendment, that right had been lost although it is unclear when. I suggest we use the date 1867 and call it "Confederation." TFD (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I found that citation (Canadian Parliamentary Review) on another Wikipedia article about Canada and it's a solid article about the monarchy, although some of it discusses less weighty matters.

The Establishment section lists the steps that led Canada to full sovereignty lists the several steps to achieve that. Confederation was only Part 1.

i.e. The '''Statute of Westminster 1931''' removed the legislative authority of the British Parliament over Canada, giving the country legal autonomy as a self-governing Dominion. Afterwards Britain could no longer nullify Canadian laws. However, Canada decided to allow the British Parliament to temporarily retain the power to amend Canada's constitution. That authority remained in effect until the '''Constitution Act, 1982''' which transferred it to Canada, the final step to achieving full sovereignty.

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have just changed Australia wiki page to this. I agree with the change to Establishment of Full Sovereignty. Shire Lord (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written by Wikipedia editors like you and I and may be wrong. According to Canada's Privy Council Office, the Queen lost the right to nullify Canada's laws in 1848.[25] That of course is separate from the power to amend the constitution. TFD (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I must confess I changed 'independence' to 'establishment' a couple of years ago on this page, so I thought I would step in. The reason I used this because the country was established through a series of constitutional changes & acts. Apologies for the vigorous debate it has caused. Shire Lord (talk)

Thank you @Shire Lord . I will also change it in the Canada article and hope that it is not reverted. I did so but the formatting does not look right. Can you help solve that? Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks ok to me - perhaps put UK in brackets. Shire Lord (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Australia infobox shows Independence from the United Kingdom. Since my revision, the Canada infobox shows Establishment of Full Sovereignty Peter K Burian (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

For the Australia page a similar consensus needs to be discussed - I have opened that on talk page there. Shire Lord (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Sovereignty from the UK not from the British Empire as someone had revised it; it has been corrected. Establishment of Full Sovereignty (from the United Kingdom) Peter K Burian (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter K Burian, thank you for your input. We've had a long discussion about this, and the consensus appears to favour including the word independence in some way. I've changed sovereignty to independence, but I'm not opposed to further changes if you'd like to discuss here first, present arguments in favour of or against wording, etc. I don't think sovereignty is an appropriate word choice because sovereignty simply means self-rule. Canada was granted self-rule in 1867, yet was not independent per se. NorthernFactoid (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @NorthernFactoid ... If I recall correctly from notes in various Canada Talk pages, the general view is that independence was obtained in 1867. Also see https://books.google.ca/books?id=VYgTaGwa4nsC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=canada+gained+independence&source=bl&ots=NcNks41qJz&sig=JnZlmp_AvCBNihtasRE7xA_1-DM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQwra3iJjSAhUlwYMKHUHOC704FBDoAQguMAM#v=onepage&q=canada%20gained%20independence&f=false

Although some sources say it was not until 1931 Statute of Westminster 1931 See https://books.google.ca/books?id=m75sCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA94&dq=canada+achieved+full+sovereignty&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=canada%20achieved%20full%20sovereignty&f=false

However, full sovereignty was not obtained until 1982 in my view. See Patriation.Also see https://books.google.ca/books?id=m75sCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA94&dq=canada+achieved+full+sovereignty&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=canada%20achieved%20full%20sovereignty&f=false

But perhaps my memory is incorrect. While the history of Canada is an interest of mine, so much of the content I had added to various articles was reverted that I reached a point where I hate to get involved in any argument. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Establishment section of the infobox

All, given that the above conversation has become quite dispersed and convoluted, I think it may be helpful to outline the reasoning and policies underlying the current article infobox in making everyone happy going forward. In adding your statements, please do not get bogged down in the details as we will likely not get anywhere, instead I think it will be much more productive to gain as much of a consensus as we can on the broad intent of this section of the infobox first, and then delve into sorting out the details such as exact events and tweaking the wording, as for example CMD has already brought forward their opinion that as it stands now the wording may be a bit clunky, and I tend to agree, however arguing over how to make it the "best" solution now will only result in grid-lock as opposed to starting broad and working narrower as we go along.

1. The intent of the infobox according to Wikipedia policy is to summarize the contents of the article, and the intent of the pertinent section of this specific infobox template is to outline the key events in the establishment/formation of the currently constituted country of today. Thus, in our case and in respecting policy and the intent of the template itself, this section is meant to identify the type of country Canada is today (ie. fully sovereign/independent), and what key events led to the establishment of Canada as we know it to be today.

2. The independent, fully sovereign Canada of today is legally bicultural and bilingual based on its deeply rooted foundations constructed from the "two founding peoples". Thus, the Canada we known in the present day is culturally, geographically, linguistically, politically, and legally shaped by the fact that Canada was named and established by the French in the 16th century. It is equally shaped by the fact that this French colony was ceded to the British, which is reflected in the underlying constitutional structure of "two founding peoples" as opposed to just one. Other key dates, such as confederation and patriation have also had a significant impact in forming the Canada we know today. Without any of the events just outlined, Canada would simply not be Canadian at all in the way that term has meaning today, and are thus very much "key events" in its formation.

3. An entity cannot "gain independence" unless it exists in the first place, and has something to gain independence from. Thus, in order to be gain independence an entity must be created, and it must be subordinate. Thus, when outlining the logical steps towards an entity becoming independent, these naturally logical steps will be its initial establishment as a subordinate entity, key events in that entity gaining a sense of equality with its superior entity, and the moment the entity becomes fully sovereign and independent, thus we can reasonably see that for the most part any given entity will generally have at least three "key events" and dates, or at the very least two (its establishment as a subordinate entity, and its independence from the superior entity). While we could simply include a single date, that of final independence/full sovereignty, the presentation of a single date defeats the purpose of the infobox in general according to policy (summarizing key events in the article text), and the intent of this specific portion of the country template which is to outline the establishment and formation of a country to the presently constituted country of the present.

Title and Note. In this way, the infobox section as it stands at the moment has "Establishment" with "Full independence from the United Kingdom was established by 1982" as its note, with the word by serving to make it abundantly clear that one, Canada is fully sovereign, and two, that this is true at least by 1982 as the concept of "Canadian independence" is an extremely fuzzy and nebulous one, but the fact that this was true by 1982 is unarguable. Also, the inclusion of words to the effect of "establishment" and "Canadian independence" incorporate the chief concerns of all editors currently involved. Once again, nitpicking on exactly how these two sentiments are presented can be left to later, the importance is that they are both presented.

1532. As outlined above, I feel it makes very little sense to discuss the establishment of the modern day, fully sovereign country of Canada without acknowledging its establishment in the first place, nor from where its French roots come from. In addition, the fact that Canada is located where it is today, and how it evolved geographically, politically, culturally, and linguistically to what we know today is very much reliant upon its initial founding in 1532. Thus the reason why this date is included within the current version of the "establishment" section.

1763. Of course, Canada would not in fact be "Canada" if Canada had not been handed over from the French to the British, and thus this date is absolutely critical in understanding Canada as it is today, and in looking its evolution to how it got to where it today in the present, and is thus included in the establishment section.

1867, 1931, 1982. Of course, no discussion of Canada today could be complete without discussing Confederation in 1867, the Statute of Westminster in 1931, and Patriated in 1982, as they were all most certainly "key events" in shaping Canada's evolution to the fully independent country it is today.

While I am almost certain that every editor involved will see something in the current situation they would like to change, we are not presently concerned with wording, but in whether or not each editor can support the broad concept as currently proposed, which is to say to use the establishment section to outline the key events making the independent Canada that we know today (culturally, politically, linguistically, etc) inline with policy and the broad template intent. If each editor could simply make a short statement we should be able to rapidly ascertain who supports this broad approach conceptually, and what reservations they may or may not have, and thus put us in good stead to move forward with tweaks to this broad concept (as an example, having "fully sovereign nation" as the title and something describing "establishment" in the note would still be inline with the broad concept we have now, as it simply reverses the title and the note, or perhaps adding in 1840 as a key event would equally remain within the broad concept we are speaking of). trackratte (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Statements

My short statement in response here is that we cannot aim for this to be a timeline of all the key events that shaped Canada into what Canada is today, culturally, politically, linguistically, ethnically, and otherwise, because that sort of timeline would take up far more space than an infobox can hope to provide. Infoboxes are meant to summarise key points, but they by no means are meant to cover everything, as again, that would be highly impractical. For the purposes of the timeline, a more specific scope is needed. I would suggest that the events focus on clarifying Canada's sovereign status, as that is the top field of this section, by covering the events that established Canada as an independent state. This is separate from whether these are listed using the titles of the events, or descriptively as done in Trackratte's changes, both of which I think could work. CMD (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Number of "key events"

In line with CMD's comment, the goal is not to over-clutter the infobox. Seeing as the longstanding previous status quo which (in terms of number of events) no editor has ever previously taken issue with was four, it would be reasonable to assume this as our goal going forward. Also, given that the minimum to show the trajectory for any given entity is three (the beginning/establishment/birth of the entity, the middle/growth/beginning of a distinct nationalism, and end/independence) it would be reasonable to state that the minimum should be three. In this way 3-5 key events should provide an acceptable parameter that everyone can get on with going forward.

• Support. 3-4 Minimum three, goal of four, no more than five, as above. trackratte (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support 3-4. so as to not add too much information to the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose.6 My preference is actually 6: the five above plus a date of first settlement of Indigenous peoples in Canada, which many reliable sources, including the government [26] name as one of Canada's founding peoples. Pakistan has six bullet points and starts at 1947, Iran has 7 starting from the Median Empire. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Undecided. I want to discuss a bit more with Trackratte (and any other editor), whose ideas warrant more consideration. I think it's important to notice that the info boxes of comparable articles (i.e. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.) use the applicable section to briefly outline how and from whom "independence" was granted. Patar knight's comments are welcomed, but I think it would be impossible to agree a firm date of indigenous settlement in what is now Canada (there are 617 First Nations in Canada today). It's also important to mention that while the federal government may declare, in a spirit of goodwill, that Aboriginals are also founding peoples of Canada, it's debatable whether all Aboriginals actually see themselves as such. By contrast, the British and French acknowledge the roles they played in the country's founding. Therefore, I think we should limit discussion to Canada's two formal founding countries - Great Britain and France. All the same, this entire issue goes away if we agreed the info box of this article should follow precedent and only briefly summarize modern Canada's independence process. NorthernFactoid (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Northern, the goal here is to deal with one issue at a time very deliberately and incrementally, which is simply to settle on a number everyone can live with, before jumping into content. Otherwise, like we see now, we get bogged down with trying to tackle everything all at once, and of course we cannot discuss a million different issues, points, and nuances all at once and hope to come to any sort of intelligent and consensual decision. trackratte (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support 3. The article isn't about 'Canada' pre-1867. The purpose of this article is to describe the country that was founded in 1867. Mystery Guyman (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Scope and title of establishment section

All, seeing as everyone who has expressed an opinion on the number of events (re: clutter) is inline with 3-4 events, save for one editor for 6, I believe we are likely satisfied in this regard that 3-4 (and perhaps at the limit 5) events does not constitute undue cluttering of the infobox, particularly as the previous status quo was four events which had never previously been in dispute.

As such, I see the next logical step as actually getting around to defining the scope and deciding on the title of the infobox. Although editors felt it necessary to express their "final solution" in the number of events section above, this continues to be unhelpful as there are just too many different issues to resolve all at once, and attempting to do so will only result in confusion and conflict as it is impossible for everyone to be in complete agreement on everything. As a result, I think it would be beneficial if we simply stick to the immediate topic at hand, and no more. In this way discussions on when Canada gained independence, what Canada actually is, when Canada was established, or any other details will be tackled at the next step depending on which one of the options below gains consensus. The goad of course being to keep as narrow a focus at each juncture as possible to 'keep us on track' towards productive consensus. Of course the wide ranging discussion in the sections above continue to be helpful, however please consider them as more detailed "side bars" to the very focused and limited discussion here. For the purposes of discussion below, only option 1 or option 2 are pertinent, all else being obiter.

The start of this whole "infobox issue" was universal agreement that the title "Establishment from the United Kingdom" was unacceptable. So far, two broad proposals have surfaced for the title:

1. Title: Independence from the United Kingdom". Scope: The verifiable events directly leading to Canadian independence.

2. Title: Formation of Canada, Formation, or Establishment (which exact one subject to further discussion if this broad concept is what garners consensus). Scope: the verifiable events which established Canada, and the most directly important events forming Canada of today. trackratte (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Responses (again please keep comments focused on whether or not you see option 1 or 2 as better for now, not what they would look like or anything else)

• 2 Just because other countries show an independence date, does not mean Canada should. Canadians commemorate Confederation (1867), which is when three colonies were merged into a new state, which is what happened in Australia in 1901 and the U.S. in 1776. Canada was recognized as a state at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 and by the U.S. in 1926. Both the Balfour Declaration 1926 and the Statute of Westminster 1931 merely confirmed reality. And in fact Canada's road to independence began before Confederation with the establishment of provincial assemblies, responsible government, consultation about Canada's role in the Crimean War and the total elimination of the remaining English non-maritime court jurisdiction in 1861. And the fact there were previous colonies called "Canada" is a red herring. If the Dominion of Canada had been called the Kingdom of Laurentia or something else, we would not be talking about it. However, instead of saying "Establishment from the United Kingdom," which is ungrammatical, it should be "by," I would just say "Confederation." It is clear that confederation means the formation of a new state. TFD (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD, I appreciate your nuanced understanding of formation, which I think is a more holistic approach beneficial to readers. However, would be kind enough to expand on what you mean in your text, ie do you support "Formation of Canada" or something inline with that sentiment, or more "Establishment by Confederation", which you seem to suggest in the end of your paragraph. trackratte (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1 For the umpteenth time, no one is suggesting the article's info box show an "independence date". What Canadians celebrate is likewise irrelevant. This is about Canada's political independence from the United Kingdom and how best to demonstrate this. I'm advocating standardization of the info box to bring it into line with comparable articles. The info box does not need special protection because some feel certain words might be confusing for people of different nationalities. Entries and arguments in favour of the word independence are given above. NorthernFactoid (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1 Independence. Colonies are established [27][28][29][30] and former colonies are independent. Mystery Guyman (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mystery, all of those examples use "Establishment" as the title, so are you expressing favour for "Establishment" (ie 1), or "Independence from the United Kingdom" (1) as the title? Many countries also use "Formation", including former colonies such as Grenada for example, if you have a preference between the two. trackratte (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear (from my above statement and previous arguments) that I'm expressing favour for Independence from the United Kingdom. Colonies (the examples given are current British colonies—Anguilla, BVIs, Caymans and Falklands) are established and former colonies (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) are independent. To use 'establishment' in Canada's case is to give the impression that it's still a colony, and we all agree this isn't so. Mystery Guyman (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the clarification. And not important for the moment, but for the record "establishment" does not mean colony, for example see England, France, Afghanistan, and Egypt for example, none of which are colonies and all of which use "establishment". While editors clearly have the right to choose whatever they wish, I just don't want anyone to feel they must choose something based on a "rule" which simply does not exist. trackratte (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

trackratte, England and France, nations in the traditional ethnic sense, never belonged to imperial powers - their establishment cannot be compared to Canada's independence (this has been pointed out to you before). Egypt's infobox explicitly mentions its "independence" and, as far as I can tell, Afghanistan was never truly a British colony. [31] NorthernFactoid (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a slight misunderstanding, we are talking only about the title here, not the events. A "formation" or "establishment" title does not preclude "independence from the UK" from being listed in the events, in the same way as at Brunei and Egypt for example, and to a certain extent Morocco. trackratte (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has become far too long and has achieved nothing. I just started a new Talk topic to vote on a suggestion, that the heading be changed

i.e. I propose that we amend the heading to Establishment of Full Sovereignty Peter K Burian (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We’ve had a very long discussion about appropriate wording. The terms establishment or independence were the focus of this discussion—not sovereignty, which simply means self-rule in the most basic sense. Canada achieved self-rule in 1867, yet the relevant section of info box clearly indicates Canada's progression to independent state. NorthernFactoid (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

We have and independence is still not the right word. Reverted your change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, God himself could tell you independence is best and you'd stubbornly fight it. We've had sources supplied that support independence, other editors support independence, and here you are insisting (based on your own unfounded opinion, of course) that independence is 'not the right word'. As for calling you, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you trying to tell me others dislike you as well? Imagine my shock! That's a very unhinged thing to say. NorthernFactoid (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Final discussion before requesting dispute resolution

I’m giving this one final shot before I submit a request for dispute resolution. It’s becoming abundantly clear that leaving this discussion open for as long as possible serves little purpose. Just when I think we might be achieving some form of consensus (and I step back to allow others to contribute), various new editors appear and try to impose their own illogical agenda, rendering useless the extensive conversations some have had here for months. There seems to be somewhat of a consensus for including the word independence in the info box in some way. It’s also established that Canada is completely independent of British rule. The objective sources mentioned in this discussion also lend credence to this.

My question is therefore simple: what word or format would best demonstrate Canada’s independence from the United Kingdom?

Believe it or not, I’m not necessarily wedded to the word independence, but I am wedded to the idea that Canada is an independent country and the current wording is vague and doesn’t demonstrate this. I, and others, feel independence from the United Kingdom unambiguously demonstrates Canada’s political independence and is consequently the most appropriate wording. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Before going forward with this independence notion...can you read a bit about how Canadians view this term.. Brian J. Bow; Patrick Lennox (2008). An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada?: Challenges and Choices for the Future. University of Toronto Press. pp. 25–. ISBN 978-0-8020-9690-6...--Moxy (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Moxy, I fully understand that the concept of Canadian independence was vague for some throughout much of Canada's history. However, this is an objective (not subjective) matter. It's 2017; is Canada an independent country? The simple answer is yes! Everyone here acknowledges Canada's independence, the article acknowledges Canada's independence, but some bizarrely disagree with using the word in the info box for purely subjective reasons. That's not good enough. One of the more outlandish reasons given for avoiding the term independence is because it might confuse Americans on account of their poor education system. Surely you see the nonsense in such a laughable assertion. If editors can provide sources that show Canada is NOT independent, I'll be happy to leave the info box in its current form. Until then, I'll continue advocating clarity and unambiguity. NorthernFactoid (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So what date do we use for that term? 1982 - Opinions differ over year Canada became sovereign Moxy (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we are trying to shoehorn Canada, with its unique history into the categories used for other nations. The U.S. declared independence in 1776, most of the other former British colonies were granted independence following the Second World War. Ironically, although Canada had been self-governing since before confederation, it was among the last whose constitution was "patriated" and retains the British monarch as head of state. So I would just include the date of confederation in the info-box and leave the nuances of political evolution toward independence in the body of the article. It would be misleading to imply that Canada became independent in 1982. TFD (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need a firm date of independence? For the gazillionth time, this isn't about that. The info box mentions three events (Confederation, the Statute of Westminster, and the Canada Act) that, over time, culminated in Canada's full and complete independence of British rule. As for trying to compare Canada's gradual independence to other countries, the problem for 'anti-independentists' is that Canada and Australia's moves to full independence are practically identical. Bizarrely, but nonetheless realizing the almost identical parallels that exist between Canada and Australia, some have opened discussion on the Australia page challenging the use of 'independence from the United Kingdom'. Apparently this is preferable to simply altering Canada's 'establishment' and now 'sovereignty'. Please tell me we Canadians aren't normally this stubborn. NorthernFactoid (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

We do not need a firm date for independence or 3 or more of them. We should just put down the date of confederation which everyone except a few people editing this article uses for the foundation date of the country. TFD (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just arrived here & holy smokers, what's all the arguing about. Use Independence, folks. The three dates in the section shows us the gradually changes in Canada's history since Confederation, so no problem. GoodDay (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Brian J. Bow; Patrick Lennox (2008). An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada?: Challenges and Choices for the Future. University of Toronto Press. pp. 25–. ISBN 978-0-8020-9690-6.--Moxy (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I know, the wonders of being a Commonwealth realm. Anyways, we've got the three dates (1867, 1931 & 1982) fleshing out the gradual independence. I think Australia has the same situation. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

So from that source it's clear the word does not apply for Canada. Was waiting for others to discover this on there own as the talks above are just full of POVs over regurgitating sources. --Moxy (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention patriation and barely touches on the laws involved in it. It doesn't focus on legislative sovereignty. It's question about independence, rather, focuses on economic integration and foreign policy (the Empire, NORAD, NATO); a question that, taken to its full extent, applies to almost every country in the world today (indeed, the author even briefly mentions that). It's therefore not really relevant to this discussion. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The source explains how Macdonald and later Elliott rejected the term. In its place they use the word sovereignty. I am not disputing the faCT Canada is independent.....it just we have a word we use for that here. -Moxy (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you accept the fact Canada is independent, there should be no objection to the use of the word "independence"; for 1982, anyway. What MacDonald and Cartier said at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries isn't pertinent; it was a different situation then. Unless we're debating here what to say happened in 1867... But, that's not the impression I got. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree...perhaps we add the source above so readers can see what happens. I will move on to fixing the lead ....can't belive we still say Canada colony founded in 1534.....a full year before Cartier even heard the word Canada. We have had some inaccurate additions as of late.--Moxy (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't at all see what's wrong with the word "independence" and nothing more. "Independence from the United Kingdom" is not only too wordy, but also implies a possible remaining dependence on some other country or countries; it is actually imprecise. The claim that there's presently some question about Canada's independence because Canada still has the British monarch as head of state is patently false; Canada does not have the British monarch as head of state, is has the monarch of Canada, precisely because Canada is independent.

Yes, Canada's attainment of full independence was gradual, whereas, for other countries, it was sudden. I don't believe we should let certain readers' misunderstandings of a word's meaning influence what we do here. If the term "independence" fits--which it does, regardless of how it was achieved--then use it and quit muddying what is already a fairly complex matter. When, in 1982, it was decided no other country could ever again make laws or policy for Canada, the country got its full and absolute independence. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a Declaration of Independence, an act granting independence or a treaty of independence? Is there an court judgment setting the date? I don't see why we should provide 3 dates, which btw ignores other important events, such as ending appeals to Westminster or establishing a separate Canadian citizenship or recognition by other nations. This is complicated by the fact that in law, the Queen is the personification of the state, and no laws since 1867 have limited her power. TFD (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hoping its possible to get the 15 Commonwealth realms (except for the UK) infobox content consistent, on this topic. All 15 were at one time British colonies. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I've no probs with deleting "..from the United Kingdom", if that's done for all 15 Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Other than the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, all achieved de facto and de jure independence as one event. The UK passed acts that said they would not long legislate for them and the British government no longer advised the Queen on their governance. The process was called independence. Previously they had been recognized as non-self governing territories by the United Nations and colonies by the UK while the first four were recognized by the international community as independent states. TFD (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm absolutely delighted to see common sense prevailing here. We are now undeniably achieving consensus favouring use of the word 'independence'. GoodDay and --₪ MIESIANIACAL, would either of you care to go ahead and make a bold edit? I'd happily do it, but it would be immediately reverted (within minutes) by one editor who clearly has an axe to grind with me. He appears to accept others who make edits though. NorthernFactoid (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarify: What are you requesting? GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Never mind - I see you've already gone ahead and made an edit. Thank you for your input. NorthernFactoid (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@NorthernFactoid (re: editor who clearly has an axe to grind with me) ...... He does not seem to accept any of my edits either, although he might IF I quote a "scholarly source". But I gave up editing here after he reverted so many of my edits. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

The population density of Canada needs to be changed to reflect the updated census. I'm unsure which area of the country to use to calculate the density

Using the total area (including water): 3.5206/km^2 and 9.1182/sq mi Using total land area: 3.86559/km^2 and 10.01182/sq mi

Also, these were calculated using the 2016 census data, though the quarterly population estimate (2016 Oct) is used in the list of population densities page. Litlest (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Use the land area specified here. Mindmatrix 01:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 15:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox at NPOVN

I have raised the issue of the what info to put into the "Foundation" field at WP:NPOVN#Info-box: "Establishment" of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I suggest the process will be more likely to succeed if editors who have been involved in the discussions, including myself, limit their participation by presenting their positions and wait for uninvolved editors to comment before engaging in lengthy argument that would make it difficult for univolved editors to follow and comment. TFD (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WHERE?--Moxy (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

here -- GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have edited my posting to include the link. TFD (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with wording for colony of Canada

Bringing this up again. Right now we say....

"Beginning in the 16th century, British and French claims were made on the area, with the colony of Canada first being established by the French in 1534."

This is a bit wrong as it was New France that was claimed in 1534.....not till the following summer of 1535 was the term/name Canada first heard and used to name the st-Lawrence River and the land of its banks. I am not sure what is best to do here. But after seeing a debate about this date on a list of country foundings with a link here saying look Canada was named in 1534 and not 1535.....I think we need to fix this mistake. I see that the main article Canada (New France) also has the wrong date.--Moxy (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done changed from "colony of Canada]] first being established by the French in 1534." - to - "colony of Canada first being established by the French in 1535 during Jacques Cartier second voyage to New France"

References

DENSITY

With 35.1 million people, density is 3.51 per sq. Km, not 3.9--213.60.237.52 (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

Change "Constitutional" in the info box to "a constitutional".

Federal parliamentary
representative democracy
under a
constitutional monarchy

This is the form used on https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html and constitutional is not proper noun. 99.230.177.147 (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. The infobox now follows MOS:CAPS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

Wikipedia pages for countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, etc. have either the Great Seal or Coat of Arms next to the respective country's flag in the info box. Why not add the Coat of Arms of Canada next to the Canadian flag in the info box like the other pages? 198.91.173.153 (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This is discussed immediately above, but to clarify, the official coat is copyrighted by the government and there is no fair use rational that can be applied for its use here. There is an approximation that would be sufficient for heraldic purposes, but several editors, including myself, have commented on how it is not a recognizable image and it has been rejected for that reason alone. It's not needed to understand the subject and so it's not likely to be done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there anyway to include the Coat of Arms?

I know the current image is not free, but is there a legitimate rationale to include it in the article? Arms of Canada and Monarchy of Canada is already using it, so why not Canada? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a rationale, but you can apply a fair use rationale for use here and see where that get you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Criterion #8 for using non-free content states that Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. To date, there has not been a consensus that having the coat of arms in this article (as opposed to visiting one of the links to Arms of Canada or National symbols of Canada) is necessary to significantly increase readers' understanding of Canada. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Including the Coat of Arms is like including the flag. It's necessary. MohammedMohammed^محمد 07:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really. It's rarely referenced and when it is, it's only in official circles. If I were to place the flags of ten nations, at random, in front of the average person, they would likely be able to name a good percentage of those nations. However, if I were to place their coat of arms, or similar symbol, before them, they would likely fail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It is rarely used. In most cases it is replaced with a red maple leaf, which is more readily identifiable. TFD (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It is used quite often, on all government buildings and passports. I have watched Walter Görlitz unfairly disallow the use of the arms of Canada on this Wikipedia page for years. Every other country on Wikipedia has the arms displayed, except Canada. A reasonable person could believe Canada does not have a coat of arms. 22:02, April 24, 2017 (EDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2C60:D63:55FD:55C7:B7EF:6AFC (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfairly? Years? It's completely legitimate that we not use the copyrighted version and it's completely legitimate that we not use the other version as it is not sufficiently similar. I don't think I've been involved with this issue for years, but it could be the case. It's really not a recognized symbol of our nation (and I'm not the only editor who thinks so). Too bad the crown has a copyright on it. That's where the lack of fairness is. It's public document and should be in the public domain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Recognized regional languages

Would it be appropriate to change "Recognized regional languages" in the infobox to "Regionally official languages?" To me, "Recognized regional languages" implies that the federal government has conferred some sub-official status on these languages in certain regions of the country. Of course, in NT and NU, these languages are on equal footing with English and French, and are designated as such by the territorial governments. Madg2011 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Independence from ______

I have changed "Independence from the United Kingdom" to "Independence from the British Empire". This seems to make more sense since Canada was never part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which is what it links to). Also Canada was a colony of the UK, not a part of it the way, let's say Scotland is now.. Another reason British Empire makes more sense. Charles lindberg (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

GDP Total is wrong, it is $1,532 trillion not $1.532 trillion

Change GDP Total "$1.532 trillion" to "$1,532 trillion" Bosung90 (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Decimals — IVORK _Discuss 09:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Make the 1st sentence of the lead more similar to the 1st sentence of the lead in the Mexico article

Change the 1st sentence of the lead from "Canada is a country in the northern part of North America" to "Canada is a country in the northern half of North America." It would be more similar to the lead sentence of the Mexico article, and also more precise and with a relevant wikilink (the wikilink to the North America page is also present early on in the lead for the United States article). One-state solution (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC) sock edit .

What exactly are the northern and southern halves? If Mexico is the southern half and Canada the northern half, then the U.S. must be in the third half. TFD (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No that's not in any way how we should explain this (We're just stating that one country is in the northern half and the other is in the southern half; if you look at the United States article, it states that "Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America between Canada and Mexico." It doesn't say "northern" or "southern" half, as the U.S. obviously has territory in both "halves". It's not a given that there's a "third half" anywhere.). The U.S. has territory outside of North America, and Mexico is already noted as being in the southern half of North America in the 1st sentence of the Mexico article, therefore a similar sentence should use consistent terminology. I'm just shooting for consistency here. The article used to say in fact say what I am proposing as a change ("Canada is a country in the northern half of North America."). One-state solution (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC) sock edit .

I don't really see the point. I know it doesn't mean Canada comprises the northern half of the continent, but it kind of sounds that way. And the division of the continent into halves is kind of arbitrary and awkward. We might as well say Canada is located in the "northern third". I think the status quo is OK. Citobun (talk)

And now the article on Mexico has been edited to say "southern portion of North America" Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I requested it be changed back to "half" as I stated use of the word "half" is more accurate and specific. The article for Argentina lists that country as being located in the "southern half of South America." One-state solution (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC) sock edit .

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2017

The line: One third of the population lives in the three largest cities: should be changed to either One third of the population lives in the three largest metropolitan areas: or One third of the population lives in and around the three largest cities: 173.79.105.199 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Requested change matches actual source given in "Demographics' section later in article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Today's featured article/July 1, 2017

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2017....--Moxy (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced sentences

Does anyone have a reference (possibly one that is already used in the article) for any of the following unreferenced sentences?

• "There are also fresh-water glaciers in the Canadian Rockies and the Coast Mountains."
• "Five parties had representatives elected to the federal parliament in the 2015 election: the Liberal Party of Canada who currently form the government, the Conservative Party of Canada who are the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party of Canada. The list of historical parties with elected representation is substantial."
• Most of the first paragraph of Canada#Sport. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Common knowledge? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase. I'd like to re-run this at TFA on July 1, but unreferenced sentences at the end of paragraphs are mostly frowned on in any FA, and they can cause problems in a TFA. Does anyone have references? - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The first two should be easy enough to source. Most of the third should be easy to supply, but the level of detail is a bit high and should probably not be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Dank: --Moxy (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)--Moxy (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Country acronyms

Here, Walter Görlitz can clarify his position. He reverted to restore inconsistency: one lone use of 'U.S.', with periods, and seven instances of 'US' and one each of 'UK' and 'USSR', without periods. In his edit summary, he pronounced "English isn't always consistent". However, WP:ARTCON tells us to make articles internally consistent. With perhaps tongue-in-cheek inconsistency, Walter also, in his typically charming manner, commanded other editors to "fix the rest"; one assumes he means put periods in all the other country acronyms, therefore establishing consistency. Which is it? Consistency or inconsistency? Periods or no periods? What do others think? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I did clarify it and you insisted on "making things match". This isn't a wardrobe. I said you may feel free to modify UK and USSR but elected not to. WP:LANGVAR states nothing about how to deal with acronyms and since the Canadian English article uses "U.S." and "UK" I see no reason that we need to fit into your box. I oppose removing the periods from U.S. to match "UK" and "USSR" but am in favour of leaving alone or adding periods to the other two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

What you actually said and the way you said it is in the edit history for everyone to see.

The "box" to fit into was there before I made my edit: nine out of ten acronyms don't have periods. So, I made the one anomaly fit the majority. I'm sure no reasonable person would see that as unreasonable. If there's a reason they're all wrong, I'm unaware of it (as must be many, many other editors who've let the period-less acronyms stand). But, if they're incorrect, let's establish why and make the correction. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems that U.S. is consistently applied by Americans, and "US" within British usage. For example, the [Oxford Dictionary states that periods are not used, i.e. NATO, EU, US, UK, etc. The MLA style guide uses the "US" abbreviation as well. And from the Government of Canada's own style guide, "Both U.K. and UK are used as abbreviations. Although the traditional practice is to use periods in the abbreviations for geographical names, there is a growing trend to drop the periods in such abbreviations. Thus, the government of the United Kingdom calls itself the UK Government (not U.K.)." It also states the same thing for the United States entry, except for the fact that the US Gov uses "U.S." reflecting American usage. The Canada style is also explicit that periods are not to be used outside of geographic names, i.e. NATO, UN, NAFTA, CAF, RCMP, etc.

My opinion based on the above is that the norm is not periods for geographic names within the Canadian context, and that this trend is increasing (a verifiable fact inline with the Government of Canada Translation Bureau reference). Also, dropping the periods is inline with Canadian usage for non-geographic names and is therefore a far simpler rule for Wikipedia. Perhaps this is a discussion for the Wiki Can style guide as well if you want to make a wider standard outside of the scope of just this article. trackratte (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue has come up at U.S. and UK talk pages, and the consensus there was to follow the different usage in the two countries. I don't think there is a right answer, but that is my preference. Note The Star uses U.K. and U.S.[32] OTOH they used "color" for years. TFD (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

TFD, agreed there is no "right" way, and that seems to be what the Government of Canada does as well, i.e. used "UK" and "U.S." in line with those country's domestic preferences. For clarity, my preferences are ranked as follows:

1. As above, no periods as per British/increasing Canadian usage: US, UK, NATO, NAFTA, etc

2. Domestic preference which is essentially no periods except for US, so : U.S., UK, NATO, NAFTA, etc

3. American practice of periods across the board. trackratte (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Doing a little digging, I found that the earliest iterations of this article used 'US', without the periods. That plus others' remarks above leads me to conclude there should be no periods in the acronyms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Good work! I'm OK with the change. I'll go make it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears to have been done already, except for a title in a single reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)