Talk:Canada Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Stephentaylor, you supplied that info in the summary. May you can give us an official page or news article online about it? (Add it to the article, like this:

== External links ==
* Title: brief desc

--Menchi 02:58 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here is a list of statitory holidays in Quebec from the website of the Labour Standards Commission. - Efghij

Noone talks about celebrating Canada Day on a Monday when its really a Sunday. --Canadianshoper 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure how it is in other provinces, but there doesn't seem to be much celebration here in Quebec, especially compared to Quebec National Holiday. Am I missing on it or is it truly not that widely celebrated. --A Sunshade Lust 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm in TO and I just came from spending afew hours down at the islands there, and it seems to be fairly majour, lot of people out, but most stores and malls are closed, I believe I heard something about Fines being handed out for being open to certain establishments, so only the Eaton Centre and malls that can afford it will be open. Saw some drunken people at 2pm, but you get that on any day for Wonderland, I know theres alot of fireworks stuff much later. Highlandlord 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There are huge celebrations in Gatineau and Montreal. I suspect the further North you go, the more separatists brainwashing there is. Therefor the less Canada day celebrations there may be. Try going to Montreal or Gatineau. Or if you really want to experience Canada Day, go to Ottawa. The party is unreal. --NationalCapital (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

July 4th[edit]

This page confirms suspicions that Canadians are too Liberal to have a sense of humor. Wahkeenah 06:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant no personal disrespect in removing the riddle. I just don't think it's relevant to Canada Day. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 04:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Canada Day. Independence Day. July 1 vs. July 4. Nope. No relevance. Wahkeenah 05:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The quote in question:
One time-honoured American schoolkids' riddle is, "Does Canada have a Fourth of July?" (Equating the expression "Fourth of July" with "Independence Day")
Such a comment smacks of anti-Canadianism.NorthernThunder (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The answer is, "Yes, only it comes on the First!.
Sorry, but I fail to see how this is encyclopedic, referenced, or of any substantial relevance to Canada's national holiday -- Samir धर्म 05:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, I wonder if America's Independence Day might've influenced the manner in which Dominion/Canada Day is celebrated (which seems reasonable, given the near-coincidence in dates) from the 1950s onwards. 04:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The guy thinks he's insulting Canada, I think - that Canada either doesn't have its own day or cannot tell what day it is. The way it is presented is not even a riddle. The riddle - published in many riddle books - is "Does England have a 4th of July?" and the answer is "Of course, what else would come after July the 3rd?" Absent any better justification for it, reinsertion should be considered vandalism. Btw, just about every country uses fireworks for their celebrations. In Canada, the July fireworks are mostly "sponsored". Individual fireworks are more common on Halloween than on July 1 --JimWae 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I can tell you that the Halloween fireworks thing is completely bogus. There are more fireworks around July 1 and I rarely if ever have seen any around Halloween. And yes, the way it is celebrated here is largely influenced by how Americans celebrate July 4. The fact that someone listed CBC's 1958 broadcast as one of the reasons (?) for picking July 1 is embarrassing. JettaMann (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Depends where you are. As a kid growing up in Ontario in the 60s, the fireworks weekend was Victoria Day. When we moved to British Columbia I was surprised to discover that out here people set off fireworks for Hallowe'en. I wondered if it was perhaps a holdover from the celebrations of Guy Fawkes Day, a custom that would have come over with the large numbers of British immigrants who came to BC in the post-Confederation period. Now municipalities are banning private sales of fireworks, so the individual celebrations are coming to an end, unfortunately. Corlyon (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in BC and people do buy fireworks for Hallowe'en, it's when individuals set them off, New Years and Canada Day are the municipal/city/corporate organised ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada Day, 2017[edit]

I nominated Canada Day, 2017 for deletion. There is a discussion here. --Paul E. Ester 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


RE: The stuff (diatribe?) in the lede claiming it is somewhat inappropriate to call the day Canada's birthday

  1. does not belong in the lede
  2. is not entirely persuasive. Canada, as it is presently constituted, did originate July 1, 1867 - even if part of it had that same name as a "fetus" & is no longer a baby (what country 140 years old has not changed?)
  • --JimWae 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also: calling it a "kingdom" in an unqualified sense is contentious - it was never legally called a kingdom, though it was called (but never named) a dominion. (Just because 1 or 2 government publications use a word does not confer legal or otherwise official status on any terminolgy.) "Constitutional monarchy", though incomplete, is at least more apt (for 2 reasons [more complete & the "king" is female]). The lede needs to be the least contentious part of every article - since ledes do not easily allow the qualifications that sections do--JimWae 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The US has changed massively since their birthday too - not only did they not have a constitution when they started, but their first one (Articles of Confederation) were abandoned & the US completely reconstituted itself with a different form of govt in 1787-89 --JimWae 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger[edit]

Is it appropriate to say it is also called Dominion Day? I have proposed that the Canada section of Dominion Day be merged to this article. I do think the lede ought to mention the name it previously had --JimWae 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dominion Day article mentions that the term has been used in New Zealand as well. Maybe leave that for the term in general, with a link to Canada Day. (I have no idea how widespread "Dominion Day" is among New Zealanders.) For this article, it's fine to include a mention of "Dominion Day" but it doesn't necessarily belong in the lead, particularly since July 1st had been Canada Day for a quarter-century. —OtherDave 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it not false to say it is "also called" Dominion Day? Also, I have heard only a few people call it "the First of July" - a poor choice in my estimation, making it seem a pale imitation of the 4th. The only top hits on google for "first of July" are wikipedia --JimWae 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly remove the reference to "First of July"; it's likely a colloquialism or neologism for which we should require a citation to include it here. As far as "Dominion Day" is concerned, we should refer to the fact that Canada Day was previously referred to in this fashion, but it has largely fallen out of favour to the preferred "Canada Day" (citation?); putting it in the "also called" section seems disingeneous, but we should recognize the heritage of the event in some way. Further, we should ensure that the use of the term dominion is consistent with the main article about Canada, and any of its sub-articles. Mindmatrix 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The umpteen articles on the various forms of Remembrance Day, Armistice Day, Veteran's Day all mention former names in the lede --JimWae 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with merger, article should examine each of the (former or present) Dominions, say if it observed a day by the name "Dominion Day", what it is now called, when the name changed, what legislation changed it. Can use the template:main to link to each one from. In 1985, Canada passed the Holidays Act. R.S., c. H-7, s. 1. changing the name Canada Day.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I say merge the articles. Dominion Day article is relatively short and Canada Day article even mentions how it used to be called Dominion Day. Yoshi thomas (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Canada Day![edit]

HAPPY CANADA DAY! Bosniak 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Canada did not become "a kingdom in its own right" in 1867[edit]

The Heritage document may be used as source for such a claim - but the article cannot state as fact that Canada became a kingdom in its own right in 1867. It is in no way clear, and in my estimation wishful thinking, that Canada became an equal of the United Kingdom in 1867. With the acts of Union neither the Kingdom of Scotland nor the Kingdom of Ireland were kingdoms in their own right. The title for Queen Victoria states clearly that Canada is a dominion of the United Kingdom of Great Britian - not a kingdom in its own right. Heritage is just blowing kisses.

  • Her Imperial Majesty Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Empress of its Colonial Empire, Empress of its Protectorate of India, Queen of its Dominions, Princess of the Principalities of Hanover, Brunswick, Saxe-Coburg, and Gotha, Duchess of the Duchies of Brunswick, Lüneburg, and Saxony, Sovereign of its Orders, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Defender of the Faith, by the Grace of God

--JimWae 04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC) It is presumptuous to think the crown disclosed every reason why they chose dominion rather than kingdom. Neither Scotland nor Ireland were kingdoms in their own right anymore - and to use Kingdom of Canada could easily have suggested their being a lower status --JimWae 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whereas the following can support tha claim that Canada is no longer a dominion at all, but rather a realm, as the crown would rarely bother to issue a proclamation repealing a title, prefering just to issue a new proclamation with a new title:

  • Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. --JimWae 05:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Jim, with all due respect, who are you to say that Heritage Canada is wrong, or "blowing kisses"? The document is an educational resource issued by the government; it isn't trivial. Further, don't confuse the proper title "Kingdom of Canada" with the descriptor "kingdom of Canada" - the former, of course, is incorrect, the latter, however, is not. Further still, I don't see any claim that Canada became an equal of the UK in 1867; a kingdom can be a subsidiary part of a larger imperial organization; regard the Holy Roman Empire. --G2bambino 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. It is my estimation they are blowing kisses - but that is beside the point. Wikipedia cannot take a non-legal document (not even a gov't "educational" pamphlet) as a plain statement of fact - only as a claimed fact. It seems to me you are reverting without properly considering what I have put in discussion to justify my changes. Canada was not a dominion of the British Empire - it was a dominion of the UK of Britain. It was not anything in its own right in 1867 - it was still possessed by its former colonial ruler. It was something between a colony & a self-governing country. Even if you disagree with that, it is a cogent interpretation with currency & some pamphlet by Heritage Canada saying otherwise does not make their interpretation something wikipedia can state as a flat fact --JimWae 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. We do not write "the USA as a Republic", nor "Spain as a Kingdom". We do not even write "the Republic of the United States". Please explain why you keep reverting to capitalizing "Canada as a Dominion" --JimWae 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Please count the number of clauses in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lede. It was better before you again reverted. There is no reason to discuss whether or not it truly is a birthday - there is no need for any further comment in the sentence calling it a birthday. That sentence appears to me to be the result of trying to suggest something without overtly stating it, and of too-hasty reversion --JimWae 07:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Well, your estimation doesn't override a published source, and a government one at that (ie. not an organization with any pro or anti-monarchy agenda). Your estimation, further, is seemingly based on incorrect information: all the territories of the British Empire were dominions of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; thus, in 1867, the confederated colonies of British North America didn't alter in status as dominions of the Crown. However, the British North America Act established a constitution in the new country called Canada that was "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom," meaning the country became a constitutional monarchy with a Westminster parlimentary democracy, albeit one still under the umbrella of the Parliament in London. Hence, as a constitutional monarchy the country couldn't be anything other than a kingdom, and with its own constitution, one in its own right.
  2. There's a difference between a "dominion" - a territory - and a "Dominion" - the specific term chosen for the non-UK self-governing territories of the Crown. Thus, in this case, Canada was always (and still is) a dominion of the Crown, but in 1867 became (and no longer is) a Dominion.
  3. I don't see any discussion of a birthday, merely the facts that Canada Day is frequently dubbed "Canada's birthday," does not mark any particular point of independence, and recognises the confederation of three colonies into a country, all of which is both factual and relevant to the topic of the article. --G2bambino 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. I asked you to count the clauses so you'd be sure to read the sentence - it is an atrocious run-on
  2. You have made no case to capitalize Dominion. We do not say "Elizabeth was crowned as Queen in 1952". We say "King Carlos was crowned in..." and Carlos was crowned King of Spain in..." but we say "Carlos was crowned as king in.." --JimWae 03:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Canada is now a monarchy in its own right, but in 1867 it was a monarchy because UKGB was one. If GB had decided in 1869 to become a republic, Canadians would have had no say in whether they remained a monarchy or not --JimWae 03:44, 5 July 2007
    1. Heritage is taking the present condition & extrapolating back in an over-simplification (something often done in the name of educating youg people). Instead of attempting a Straw man argument, please note I am saying Heritage is a source of a claim - and that claim cannot be stated as a flat fact --JimWae 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. I see it was not all your doing. While this diff eliminated a redundancy created by a too-swift reversion, it created many problems which you edited on top of --JimWae 05:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. The mention of birthday is immediately followed by a statement of what the day is not (previously it more directly attacked the notion of birthday). There is more about what it is not & little or no mention that the Constitution that established Canada then is the same one (amended) that Canada uses now. The sentence then rambles on & on & on. --JimWae 05:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oh, I noted that the sentence is a run-on, thanks very much. I just didn't have enough time to figure out something better. Perhaps you could assist? I assume it isn't my duty alone to edit this article.
  2. Dominion is a proper noun in this case. Please understand the difference between generic "dominion" and specific "Dominion." The article Dominion explains it.
  3. It either became or did not become a kingdom in it's own right. It did. If the UK was a republic the sentence would read "Canada became a republic in its own right."
  4. I made at least one of the edits to the paragraph in question that attempted to remove the inference that the "birthday" interpretation is wrong. I think it's less POV now, but, if it needs more finessing, what do you suggest? --G2bambino 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. a "proper noun" is the name of a particular person, place, or thing. I cannot think of how any word preceded by "a" could be a "particular". Must I cite style guides? --JimWae 04:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A particular thing is what we're dealing with here: a Dominion, as in a self-governing territory of the British Crown outside of the UK itself. That's different to "a dominion," which is just the generic term for a territory or region under absolute ownership. Canada was a dominion prior to 1867; after that year it continued to be so but also became a Dominion, however in the context of the sentence we're talking about the latter, not the former. --G2bambino 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether or not capitalizing dominion in BNA1867 indicates it is a proper noun:
    • "a" and "an" are indefinite articles
    • "the" is the definite article
    • proper nouns generally get introduced by the article "the"
    • Nouns which are always proper nouns can sometimes be introduced by an indefinite article ("a Sunday to remember")
    • Some nouns are sometimes proper and sometimes common. When these are meant to be used as proper nouns, they are identified as such by being introduced by "the" or by putting them in quotes --JimWae 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC) --JimWae 09:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "king" is a title - but in current English usage, "king" does NOT get capitalized when we say "Carlos is king" - even though that is his specific title --JimWae 09:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC). We do not write "Carlos is a King". Instead of using an indefinite article with a word that can be either capitalized or not, putting quotes around "Dominion" will make it clearer that it is not a wiki-error --JimWae 10:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Canada was one of "the Dominions." As such, it was a Dominion. Currently it's one of the Commonwealth Realms; are you saying one would describe Canada as a "commonwealth realm."? --G2bambino 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To summarize JimWae's point, it is revisionist history to assert that Canada became a Kingdom in its own right. The words from the official document state:

"federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".

...and I don't see how anyone can misinterpret the meaning of "Dominion UNDER" (emphasis added).--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources would prove it not to be revisionist at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It is misleading to say Canada became a kingdom in its own right in 1867. UK refused to grant the requested "kingdom" title & used "dominion" instead. The sources are all taken one from another & they are all engaged in blowing kisses. Now blowing kisses is acceptable on national holidays & when furthering political agendas, but in encyclopedias they are only sources for claims & do not establish such claims as unqualified facts--JimWae (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That's merely your opinion, which has no real bearing on how this encyclopaedia is written. Wikipedia relies on sources, and the fact that Canada became a kingdom in its own right in 1867 is sourced. Your interpretation is not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The relationship of Canadians to the crown did not change in 1867. There were 3 colonies on June 30, and on July 1 three colonies became one colony that had a new "title" attached to it. The main event was the creation of a single responsible government where previously there had been 3. The relationship of the inhabitants to the crown did not change - except that there was a new (federal) level of gov't between the people & the crown. It is misleading & uninformative simplification to state as a blanket fact that Canada became a kingdom in 1867. Better language is available than what appears in celebratory pamphlets. --JimWae (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What you call celebratory pamphlets most others would call information sources (plus, since when was the Buckingham Palace website or a 64 page book considered a celebratory pamphlet?). Nothing wrong with adding explanatory detail, of course; but I think that's been sufficiently done already, what with the information about the British parliament's remaining role and all that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
None of those cited references state that Canada became a Kingdom in its own right on July 1st, 1867, regardless of what may or may not have happened after that date. (Or if any of those references do state that explicitly, then I'd appreciate it if anyone would provide a pointer for me.) And the exact words from the document being celebrated were quoted directly. Yet you choose to ignore the source in favor of questionable interpretations of references to that source. An accurate encyclopedia requires that reason overrides passion.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Three of the sources cited state Canada became a kingdom in its own right on 1 July 1867, one says it is now a kingdom:
  • "Canada has always been a monarchy... a kingdom in her own right since 1867."[1]
  • "Canada has long been a monarchy... a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward."[2]
  • "Canada has long been a monarchy... a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward."[3]
  • "Canada has been a monarchy for centuries... now as a kingdom in her own right."[4]
Granted, the last one doesn't mention Confederation specifically, but what other event could've taken place between being a monarchy under the British Crown in the 19th century and now at which point Canada became a kingdom in her own right? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the info I had missed.
Now even with that, I still don't see how any of those official references can be argued to override what the source document clearly states.
I hope you are open to the notion that even governments are susceptible to engaging in revisionist history. Or perhaps more appropriately, especially governments!--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Who claimed anything overrode anything else? The sources aren't even contradictory. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The words "federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" describe a situation where Canada is dominated by the UK. That is what status of Dominion means. It does not confer any notion of equal status. The source document clearly states that Canada is being created underneath the UK crown. And even today, on the infrequent occasions where the queen visits Canada, her official title cites the country of the UK prior to the mention of Canada. This indicates that Canada's own head of state does not give the country equal status to the UK, where she lives full time.
Say that today you were to create anew a brand new country out of virgin land (for some reason undiscovered until 2010. You create a Kingdom where that monarch lives full-time in another Kingdom, where there are many signs that this new Kingdom is not the top priority for loyalty of this monarch. Even in THIS hypothetical case, I'd say that you'd be hard pressed to claim that this new Kingdom is a "Kingdom in its own right". It would be clear to me that the new Kingdom is bound to a greater Kingdom.
In Canada's case, that greater Kingdom is the UK. Now if someday Canada should choose to sever ties to the UK monarch, or convice her to move to Canada and make Canada her top priority, then I would agree that Canada has become a kingdom in its own right.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Without getting into your total misinterpretation of Canada's present state vis-à-vis the United Kingdom and the idea of personal union, nowhere in the article is it claimed that in 1867 Canada gained equal status to anything. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you reconsider the power contained in the words, "own right". This means that you have rights that are separate. Whatever you make of the truth of that supposition today, it certainly was not an accurate description of the situation in 1867, when even the UK Parliament had heavy authority over Canada.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Well then, by all means, petition the Department of Canadian Heritage and Buckingham Palace to convince them they're in error. Until then, the sources stand as they do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You've made it clear that you're not open to the notion that governments engage in revisionist history. As for your view that Buckingham Palace supports the article in its present form, the one reference (out of the four) that avoids identifying 1867 as the point of establishing Canada in its own right, is the one reference that comes from outside of Canada's borders.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not up to us to declare sources as right or wrong; we can only state what they state. As I pointed out already, there isn't even, in this case, any contradiction between sources. You've tried to create one by giving the words "own right" your own unique interpretation, but that's a fabrication, and a not terribly sound one, at that. "Became a kingdom in its own right" does not, as you suggest, imply that Canada gained some equal status with Britain; a country can be a kingdom in its own right under a larger imperial body. I already brought up the example of the Holy Roman Empire above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
But it is up to us to identify logical inconsistencies. The very name of the act was the "BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT". It was not 'a new kingdom within the United Kingdom act'. It was not the 'Canada Act'. "British" meant 'we still own you'.
The Holy Roman Empire falls short because that is an example of separate (in their own right) kingdoms that have been united under one emperor. If Britain had one ruler and Canada had a different ruler united under one crown, then there might be a valid point. In reading the original 1867 document, I consider it pivotal to note that the monarch is still referred to as being "...of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". She was not called "the Queen of Canada".
That act did not create a new country. It simply reorganized British Territory in North America (hence the title). Only much later did the Canadian government go back and single that out as the formation of a new country in revisionist style, going so far as to change the name to the Constitution Act.
It is the duty of an encyclopedia to properly recognize revisionism and identify it as such. But if instead we present the historical record of this 1867 act as creating a new country separate from Britain, then this article will be doing a disservice to the cause of accurate history.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It isn't up to you to dictate what is accurate and what is not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I totally disagree with that.
Another reference that is significant to this discussion:
Canada's founders, led by Sir John A. Macdonald wished their new nation to be called the Kingdom of Canada, to "fix the monarchical basis of the constitution." The governor general at the time, the Viscount Monck, supported the move to designate Canada a kingdom; however, officials at the Colonial Office in London opposed this potentially "premature" and "pretentious" reference for a new country.
--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That speaks about the name of the country, not what form the new country took. It's the reason why Macdonald et all wanted the name Kingdom of Canada that's pertinent to this discussion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I will go so far as to make a prediction:
When Canada finally breaks ties with the British Monarchy, that date will become the new date when Canadian independence is celebrated. Because that will be the date when full independence (in its own right, if you will) will finally be achieved. I'll also predict that this will happen with the passing of Lizzy, because I don't picture Canada (or Australia or New Zealand, &others) accepting the successor to the British throne. But to this day I do not see Canada or the others to constitute kingdoms in their own right. They all still _depend_ on the one monarch who's primary loyalty lies in England.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Then, you must believe the United Kingdom isn't independent, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If two entities share the same Head of State, then it is impossible for them to be independent.
I'll try a new tack here...
Consider people in Nunavut who may desire independence from Canada. Does anyone today take Nunavut to be a nation in its own right? Clearly not. But say that over the decades into the 22nd century, the government of Nunavut becomes totally separated from the government of Canada. Say that Nunavut then annually celebrates April 1st as "Nunavut Day". And the Wikipedia article on Nunavut Day states that April 1, 1999 was the day that the separate country of Nunavut was created.
A minority opinion works to restore accuracy to that article by pointing out that indeed Nunavut was not established as a separate country in 1999. It was still very much a part of Canada, be it a territory rather than a province.
...but that minority gets squashed by the patriotic fervor from Nunavut Wikipedians who revert all such edits, pointing out and heavily citing official Nunavut government references on how the 1999 act is the Nunavut Independence Act of 1999 (as it was renamed in 2067). The minority opinion gets silenced, and subsequent generations will learn that the country of Nunavut was born in 1999.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is purely academic and of no realtion to the article, but when a country can do as it chooses when it chooses to do so, it is independent. What the United Kingdom does has no bearing on Canada and vice versa. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Independent like issuing its own passports which happened in... --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I've already expressed that it is impossible to be independent if you have the same person as your Head of State. The Queen happens to also share the role of Commander in Chief. I hope this elucidates how the UK and Canada are not independent. If Canada were to attack London, we can expect that the Queen would immediately order all troops of the _Royal_ Canadian military to cease and desist. And they would all be obligated to do so, because they've sworn their allegiance to the person who happens to be the Commander in Chief of the UK. My understanding is that it is the same crown on the insignias of both countries' militaries.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Bizarre and baseless speculation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It is the most blatant example of the conflict of interest that exists between Canada and the UK to this very day.
If you'd prefer to avoid hypotheticals, we can go back to the actual authority that was established by the 1867 act: The Queen maintained Executive authority over Canada. Her representative was required for executing any legislation that came out of Parliament. And the Queen was given two years to overturn anything that her representative signed off on that she didn't like (for any reason at all!).
So how can this in any way be viewed as having "no bearing" between the two entities? It is easy to see acts from Canadian Parliament getting shot down by the GG. And if for whatever reason the GG signed off on anything that the Queen saw as harmful to the UK (regardless of how much it may benefit Canada) it is easy to see her overturning that. I thoroughly expect that a close examination of Canadian legislation will find many such examples. Or examples of legislation that Parliament didn't bother to push, because they knew it would get shot down by the UK-friendly Executive.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This is no longer 1867. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's political hyperbole that misrepresents actual Canadian history. --JimWae (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no misrepresentation at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, so please forgive any departure from them by posting this information here at the top of the "talk" section. That being said, the below argument attempts to arrive at a definite answer to "when did Canada become a kingdom / realm" when there is none. There was an evolution of sovereignty that concluded with the Constitution Act, 1982. It is certainly not the case that Canada became a "kingdom" on July 1, 1867. When the BNA Act, 1867 was passed, and Canada became a Dominion in 1867, the UK controlled the foreign affairs of Canada, and the Colonial Laws Invalidity Act invalidated any Canadian legislation that was, in the opinion of the British Privy Council, in conflict with British Imperial legislation. The earliest date that Canada could be said to be a kingdom is with the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which repealed the Colonial Laws Invalidity Act and introduced the requirement of consent of the dominions to the accession of the monarch. I think the best thing to do is not use the word kingdom at all. See McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 578 at paras. 33 - 49 for authoritative, judicial support of the above. Handouts from Heritage Canada are definitely not authoritative of anything. (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)ts275 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom, because that's how it's done.
I have no further comment, but it is consensus that we use "kingdom". Until that changes, and you have some valid points to that end, it should remain that way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Moving Day in the see also section[edit]

Moving Day in QC has little to do with Canada Day except that it is July 1 and people get July 1 off. There is no comparison with Memorial Day in NL, which is a holiday in that province. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted in cases where July 1 does not fall on a working day[edit]

Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada), formerly Dominion Day, is Canada's national day, a federal statutory holiday, celebrated on July 1 annually by all governments and most businesses across the country; the date, though, is adjusted in cases where July 1 does not fall on a working day.

It's only the day off work that's adjusted... if Canada Day falls on a Saturday, Monday-Friday workers get the Monday off instead. This long sentence seems to imply that date on which Canada Day falls varies from year to year when in fact it's always celebrated on July 1st. In the same respect, it also seems to imply that it's only celebrated by governments and businesses but it's also referring to the day off work as it's celebrated by people (seeing as how the government & businesses are closed). (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Canada Day[edit]

Bonne fête du Canada! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

merci beaucoup! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian celebrations of Canada Day[edit]

It's true that the Victoria Cross bar in North Sydney has been used on 1 July in recent years by Sydney-based Canadians as a venue to celebrate Canada Day. However the bar was demolished several months ago. There were no celebrations there on 1 July 2008. (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) rithom

Memorial Day in Newfoundland[edit]

I am sure this discussion has come up, I cant seem to find record of it, but why was Memorial Day in Newfoundland meged with Canada Day. The simple fact that they are both on July 1 would not seem to be sufficient reason. Can anyone offer insight? Labattblueboy (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

scratch comment, it was simply Newfoundland and Labrador Memorial Day is redirected and should go to Memorial Day (Newfoundland and Labrador). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labattblueboy (talkcontribs) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the Oath day an official declared holiday in canada?[edit]

Tomorrow is my canadian citizenship Oath day. I would like to know if in toronto it is a delared holiday or number of hours that we can get paid off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Canada's Birthday?[edit]

Canada only became an independent country in 1962 so why call it its birthday? or is it like the border line of the dominion that was called canada or something? ChesterTheWorm (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

I believe you are trolling. Nonetheless, Canadian Confederation was a major achievement and marks the birth of the new nation uniting the British North American colonies. And your 1962 date is meaningless. Perhaps you meant 1982? DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe by calling me names you are trolling. Nonetheless, i think it is 1982 not 1962 which is the time canada became a nation thus it is it's birthday ChesterTheWorm (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

Is that your personal opinion, which is worth as much as any opinion, or do you have a citation that suggests Canada has only been a nation for the past 26 years? fishhead64 (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1982=patriation of the Constitution. But we date our country to 1867 (confederation). Canada became a nation gradually and incrementally. 1867 is the recognised starting date. 82 was important, but no one would argue we became a nation then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No clear awnser to the actual age of Canada by Canadians?[edit]

Sum say: 1962 1982 1602 1867 Never a clear awnser yet this wiki posts makes the point it happened in 1982 yet it corrects it too LoL wtf? ChesterTheWorm (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

You said 1962, nobody else did. Confederation happened on July 1, 1867. That is quite simple. What 'post' are you referring to that 'makes it clear it was in 1982'? Please stop trolling. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey i aint trolling it says in the cammemoration section "the British Parliament at first kept limited rights of political control over the new country, which were shed by stages over the years until the last vestiges were ended in 1982, when the Constitution Act patriated the Canadian constitution" Obviously thas when it became independent thus Canada is only 27 years old. ChesterTheWorm (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC) ChesterheWorm

Well how old is 'Italy'? or 'England'? or 'France'? Some nations evolve over time from one thing to another. Canada as part of New France could be said to go back to 1608 and the founding of Quebec City by Champlain. The 'Province of Canada', as a British colony, was formally established in 1791, replacing the British Province of Quebec. However, Canadians have long considered 1867 to mark a significant step from colonial status towards independence. On July 1, 1867 a new 'federal' government came into being which gave significant authority to a central Parliament in Ottawa. The creation of the dominion of Canada in 1867 did not mark complete independence from the U.K., but brought 3 colonies together into a new political structure, giving us a Constitution that forms the basis of our present federation, including the establishment of the federal parliament, the Supreme Court and the all-important distribution of powers. In 1933 the Statute of Westminster gave Canada (and the other 'dominions') autonomy in international affairs. 1982 marks the repatriation of the Constitution. Another important date. Most Canadians, I would guess, date modern 'Canada' from 1867, as evidenced by the massive centennial celebrations in 1967. The fact that the U.S. can date its age from July 4, 1776 but Canada can't do precisely the same with a fixed date is an example of how the 2 countries took very different paths toward statehood. Corlyon (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent external links[edit]

User Asiantractor has added a spam link to this page and a couple of others, which I have reverted. Please keep an eye out, I have tried warning this user on his or her talk page, but the user does not seem to understand the external link policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Date Format[edit]

When this article was begun in 2001 it used MDY format. That was the format used for years until 2009-Jul-01. The first attempt at conversion to DMY was 2005-Oct-10, but was reverted, as were all subsequent changes. Wikipolicy is not to change format unless a new consensus develops for a change. Silence is not a new consensus. See this --JimWae (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, sod the D M Y format; don't know why our banks have moved to it. –xenotalk 20:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing about the (European) DMY format that is special to Canada. (Btw, Nearly every Canadian newspaper uses MDY.) The format used by Canadian gov't offices is YYYY-MM-DD and YYYY-MMM-DD, but unfortunately wikipedia sanctions neither of those. Canadian banks recently insisted that the format on cheques be specified as one of THREE: DD-MM-YYYY, MM-DD-YYYY, or YYYY-MM-DD --JimWae (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:DATE, either DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY are acceptable for Canadian articles. From my editing experience, it seems the former is more commonly employed; in fact, WP:DATE also says MM-DD-YYYY is rather unique to the US. I changed the date format as part of a general overhaul of the article. At the time, there were no objections raised by the edits I was making; as nobody invoked the WP:BRD cycle, everything seemed fine. Nearly six months has passed since then, with no objections raised; per WP:CON, silence can indeed be taken as consensus. What reason is there to return to the equally acceptable but more US-oriented format? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:DATE#Retaining_the_existing_format

"In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic" --JimWae (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
In the early stages of writing an article, yes. This article is long past that point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:DATE#Retaining_the_existing_format

"If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." --JimWae (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

None of your edit summaries ever mentioned a change in date format, and there was no other notice of the change. In the midst of all the other changes on July 1, there was no notice given of what you were doing. The format the article first used & used consistently for nearly 9 years is the one that has the presumption unless you now develop an explicit consensus otherwise. We need to follow policy to prevent endless edit-warring. If you want to pick apart exact wordings, WP:CON says "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community" and "Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus UNTIL someone actually challenges them". Also see WP:Silence says "silence is the weakest form of consensus". Summarized: there is no longer even a weak "consensus" for your change. --JimWae (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly did mark in my edit summary that I had changed the date format; see my summary at 14:55, 1 July 2009. If a consensus arises that says to put it back, so be it. But, as I see it, the six month long silence says the DD-MM-YYYY format is fine by the community. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "(general fmt of refs, dates, & imgs)". OK, you indicated something about "fmt... dates" - but nothing specific about what you were doing. That was not sufficient notice to be "adequate exposure". Every relevant policy favors the original format & discourages changing. The presumption now is to return to MDY - unless you can point to a policy otherwise or establish a new EXPLICIT consensus. (Btw, Every newspaper & flyer that comes into my house uses MDY.) --JimWae (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I think we should maintain consistency among Canadian articles, I see Canada is using M D Y so I would suggest using the same here. –xenotalk 22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed many others using DD-MM-YYYY; which is precisely why I changed the dates here in the first place. I'm really starting to wonder, though, why this is suddenly, after all this time, being turned into such a contentious issue; it wasn't six months ago. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This is perhaps something that should be resolved centrally, and the best place to do so would probably be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) with a note at WT:CANADA requesting input. –xenotalk 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
By resolving this centrally, do you mean imposing a standard date format across all Canada-related articles? Or merely that the date "issue" at this article be decided centrally? If it's the latter, I'd rather not see something so minor demand more attention than it deserves; if JimWae could just explain why my change was so offensive, perhaps we could resolve the matter amongst ourselves. As I said, my experience has been that most Canada articles use the DD-MM-YYYY format; am I wrong? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The former. I think Canadian articles should be consistent, be it M D Y or the horrid D M Y. Even though I prefer M D Y if the consensus is to have D M Y then I will support that being written into the guideline and all Canadian articles falling in line. Having a mish-mash is not acceptable. –xenotalk 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd certainly also support a consistently used format. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I could just as well ask what you find so offensive about MDY. It's not about finding something offensive. We all have our preferences (my highest preference is actually neither). We all have our preferences, but we cannot go around changing articles to our preferences. There is a decision procedure (per article) on what date format to use (first use) & if everyone were allowed to just change the format to their preference, there would be endless edit-wars. The decision procedure does not involve what impressions any of us have developed about "most Canada articles" or "what most Canadians use"--JimWae (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For the third time (I think), I changed the date format so that it fell in line with what I've seen to be the most commonly used throughout Canada related articles. That's all; nothing to do with my preference, really. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But every relevant policy says leave the date format alone. --JimWae (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One rather ambiguous one says leave the format alone; whether that means in the early stages or forever is somewhat questionable. I just wanted to make things consistent; as xeno says, there should be one accepted practice, not two. That would clear up quite a lot of mess. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It means forever. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Still referred to as Dominion Day[edit]

Relating to this edit -

I believe this is important to avoid confusion. MrTranscript (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides the point there's no source supporting the assertion, confusion over what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Confusion over whether or not Canada Day is the same thing as Dominion Day. MrTranscript (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no Dominion Day for Canada Day to be the same thing as. So, your edit would actually cause confusion, not avoid it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No it wouldn't because I clear stated that it is 'sometimes referred to' Dominion Day, while being officially Canada Day. MrTranscript (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion about Dominion Day and The Dominion of Canada have been had numerous times on various WP pages. We're not going to include the statement unless you can find a reliable third-party source that supports the claim. Mindmatrix 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Date format, again[edit]

  1. On 2009-07-01 a change was made to the date format in this article by User:Miesianiacal. Until that point it was in Month Day, Year format. The date change goes against Wikipedia policy as defined in at WP:MOSDATE.
  2. At least one effort was made to change it back and was reverted with the comment "There was no objection to dd-mm-yyyy format for months, silence=consensus. No need to split refs apart". It does not address the breech of policy.
  3. A lengthy debate occurred for similar reasons on Talk:Victoria Day#Long date format which resulted in Miesianiacal reverting the change (and getting a barn star for keeping his word after annoying many editors for making the change in the first place).

I don't want a long debate I want it changed back as per Wikipedia policy. It should be changed within the week. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

as per the comment on User talk:Miesianiacal I have reverted the breach and will keep the article on my watch list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment not that this should affect the change of format, but can people please stop saying this is "policy"? MOSDATE is a style guideline, which (from Wikipedia's perspective) is quite different from a policy (per Wikipedia:GUIDES#Role). --Ckatzchatspy 07:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

new external links[edit]

I see that User:Patforg has added a few new external links. Since they're not commercial sites or groups, it's not SPAM. However, they're not encyclopedic and they are mostly just ads. So what do we do with them since I'm sure a lot of cities in Canada have events and sites or pages? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This could become a laundry list, and if they are serving ads mostly, they are not that useful. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
But they're not serving-up a great deal of ads. Agree that it could become a link farm. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"last vestiges were surrendered"?[edit]

I have raised the point that this statement gives a misleading impression that Canada has broken all political ties to the UK. This is obviously not accurate in that the Queen of Canada lives in Buckingham Palace, and visits to Canada are infrequent. The proposed change is to explicitly state:

"...last ties to British Parliament were surrendered..."

This would bring the article in line with the current status of Canada, instead of implications toward a status that does not yet exist. The full quote in the current revision that I see to be misleading is:

Canada became a kingdom in its own right on that date, but the British Parliament kept limited rights of political control over the new country that were shed by stages over the years until the last vestiges were surrendered in 1982 when the Constitution Act patriated the Canadian constitution.

--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does the British parliament need to be mentioned twice? I doubt people will have forgotten what vestiges are being referred to after reading twenty words. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it would be awkward verbiage. Here's a revised proposal:
...but limited rights of political control were kept over the new country that were shed by stages over the years until the last vestiges of control by the British Parliament were surrendered in 1982 when the Constitution Act patriated the Canadian constitution.
Or something to that effect.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Change "that were shed by stages" to "that were shed in stages"? I'm not certain but the preposition by just doesn't sound right. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Image caption[edit]

User:Freshacconci keeps removing the word "her" from the sentence "Queen Elizabeth II and her then-prime minister, Jean Chrétien, at the official Canada Day celebration in Ottawa, 1997," leaving the awkward, confusing, and grammatically incorrect caption "Queen Elizabeth II and then-prime minister, Jean Chrétien...," which reads as though Jean Chrétien was in 1997 both Queen Elizabeth II and prime minister. Even if the comma is removed and the sentence becomes "Queen Elizabeth II and then-prime minister Jean Chrétien...," one is left wondering who's prime minister Jean Chrétien is; the President of Iceland's? Freshacconci's reasoning for the deletion was something about non-Canadians being confused by an archaic arrangement, but it's unclear what exactly is meant by that. The original wording was understandable and accurate. Why was it changed? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the edit that made the change. I know "her" would make many Americans wonder just how intimate the relationship is. It's a Westminsterian colloquialism that many will have far more trouble interpreting than something like "Queen Elizabeth II is accompanied by then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien..."--JimWae (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
First, thank you JimWae for clarifying my point. Second, I didn't "keep removing" the word "her", like I was sitting here all day undoing the same edit. I removed it twice. Once, with an explanation that it seems too archaic and confusing, and the second time because Miesianiacal's revert was basically unexplained. His latest revert says it's to distinguish who is who in the photo, because your average reader will surely believe that this is Queen Elizabeth. Anyway, it's not a big deal, but "her" prime minister sounds awkward and is a bit needlessly confusing, IMO. freshacconci talktalk 13:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This is what I don't get: it's somehow less confusing to be more vague. It's not that one person needs to be distinguished from the other, the question is: Who's prime minister was Jean Chrétien, again? The caption doesn't say... Regardless, would something like
Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, and the then-Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, at the official Canada Day celebration in Ottawa, 1997
be satisfactory? At least it hints at the Queen and Chrétien being related in some way to one another as public figures of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That's fine by me. I do understand that the unknowing reader might not have a clue why these two people are featured in an article on Canada Day and some sort of explanation is in order. But the "her Prime Minister" wording, as correct as it may be, seems to suggest that he was the British PM (to an American, for example, who may only understand QE as the British monarch). Not that I'm expecting too many Americans to be reading an article on Canada Day.... freshacconci talktalk 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well now I understand, and agree that the lack of a national qualifier could've led to confusion; EIIR does have more than 20 premiers. I was thrown by the "archaic" comment, as though saying "her prime minister" was somehow no longer accurate, the Prime Minister of Canada now at the top of the pyramid and ministering nobody.
If the above suggestion is fine, I'll insert it in a little bit; I have to run out for a while now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
While technically correct, it is archaic and confusing to some. It also appears as though this is becoming an edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, what exactly is archaic and what edit war? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, how is this an edit war? We're discussing it. I think this is actually the opposite of an edit war. freshacconci talktalk 14:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's the sequence of edits: I made an edit, Miesianiacal reverted. I changed it back. Miesianiacal reverted, then self-reverted that. Hardly a war as we are now discussing suitable wording that makes everybody happy. We have opposing viewpoints but we are discussing some semantic differences on the talk page like adults. Wikipedia should be like this all the time. freshacconci talktalk 14:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The terminology "her prime minister" is archaic. The number of edits to the phrase over the past 48 hours makes it look a lot like an edit war. The discussion here is not an edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the image. This is becoming a stupid monarchist imposition on the article. The current caption is so pompous that it's a joke. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And here was I thinking you'd learned to be civil. Anyway, how has an image that's been in the article for over four years suddenly become a "monarchist imposition"? The "pompous" caption thing doesn't explain much, probably because what is and is not pompous is a matter of personal taste. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Civility? The statement is now absolutely correct but no one would ever say it. Certainly not an encyclopedia. She's Canada's Queen, but to say "Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, and the then-Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, at the official Canada Day celebration in Ottawa, 1997" is an awkward construct in common English. I think most Canadians would say "Jean Chrétien and Queen Elilizabeth II at the 1997 Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa." since he's on the left and we work left-to-right in English. But of course you're going to argue some minor point of protocol or something else that no one other than a monarchist toady would actually know or care about. And I have no intention of changing this maladroit phrase because you've fought hard to get it to this point and I don't think you're going to try to fix it. So just leave it and let someone else complain in a year's time. But don't say that no one complained about it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I am happy with the consensus wording that Miesianiacal and Freshacconci developed. While I think Walter Görlitz has a point about the figures being identified left-to-right (we are not bound by royal protocol on Wikipedia), I would suggest that there are far more constructive ways for him to have raised the issue, and accordingly I am inclined to leave it as it is. I think there was a good resolution to this issue. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100 percent. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Dominion Day in lede[edit]

Dominion Day is mentioned twice in the lede. I don't know that it should be mentioned at all and it should simply be left to the history section. Any objections to moving the unrepeated points to the history section, or at the very least, paring it back in the lede? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Attendance of Prince William and Duchess of Cambridge at 2011 Canada Day[edit]

Mention in the article of the presence of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at the Canada Day festivities in Ottawa in 2011 has been twice deleted now, with the rationale being that it should go because it is WP:NOTNEWS. The reasoning doesn't fit, however, since the single sentence is not presented as a news piece; it follows quite fittingly on mention of who the main players are and have been at the central Canada Day events in the national capital. This was also the first time members of the Royal Family other than the Queen and Prince Philip have presided over the ceremony, making it rather notable. (I've added a bit of detail on that fact into the article.) The sentence should be left in place. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, it was presented as a news-like item prior to July 1, 2011 and was altered to merely state that the two had attended after Canada Day. I don't see how this is relevant to the article. Notable people attend Canada Day activities all the time. We don't list everyone. As for these two, I don't see the significance of this particular mention. The Queen and Prince Philip visiting in 1967 is significant for obvious reasons. I'm sure some will argue that the future heir to the throne visiting is significant and that this was an historical tour and all that but what future significance their presence here in Canada represents is speculation at best and certainly violates WP:CRYSTAL and any number of points in WP:NOT. freshacconci talktalk 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
What notable people attend in that capacity other than politicians and the governor general or monarch? I don't think it would've been necessary to mention the two by name had this not been a first. But it was. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The information strikes me as WP:RECENTISM. The royal family attending Canada Day is nothing new - the fact that it was different members of the family this time around does not seem notable. More like trivia than anything else. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The information doesn't make sense in the section, unless of course you're a Canadian monarchist. However, the royal family attending Canada Day is something new. In the 144 years since Confederation, this is only the fifth time that a royal has been in official attendance. Compare that other former colonies on their national days. Compare that to Great Britain where the Queen is in attendance every year. The context is missing though. Someone unfamiliar with the royal family may not know that the prince is third second in line for the throne. They may not know that this is also the throne of Canada as well. While there are rumblings of becoming a republic, it's not nearly as loud as it is in Australia and so it may be that he will eventually be the head of Canada. So my preference would be keep and improve. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a fair comment. Is there a way we can write this differently and in another area that contextualizes this without the fawning, so that a non-Canadian (and actually maybe some Canadians as well) would be able to understand it? freshacconci talktalk 15:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Fawning? Incomprehensible to Canadians?
I also don't understand much of Walter's comment: Of what relevance is Canadian monarchism? What is there to compare with other former colonies? What does the Queen attend in the UK every year? What does it matter? And, most importantly, how is the sentence about William and Catherine in the wrong place? The paragraph clearly starts, about half way through, to focus on the Canada Day concert on Parliament Hill and who presides over it: typically the governor general, but also, on occasion, the monarch. I fail to see how the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall's presence - again, a first in more than one way - isn't related.
Regardless, that's not to say the wording can't be improved. Are there any suggestions? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Walter Görlitz is offering support for the statement and you still have to argue. What's not to understand about providing context so non-Canadians would understand why this is supposedly a big deal and not just a couple of over-hyped celebrities who happened to be there at that time. freshacconci talktalk 17:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I actualy think this solution is worse - taking a piece of of arguably non-notable information and then lengthening it by importing more text from Monarchy of Canada, all of which is only peripherally relevant to the subject of this article. We are talking about the attendance of two royals at one Canada Day event in one year - I'm not sure adding a lesson in Canada's constitution to the paragraph helps. I don't think the sentence is necessary, but I'd prefer it as is if that's the choice. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't like the sentence at all. I think it's trivial and meaningless. However, if consensus were to be reached in favour of keeping it, I agree with Walter that it needs contextualization. But I will make it clear: my preference is for the text being removed outright. freshacconci talktalk 18:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah. Sorry for the rambling response earlier. Let's try it this way: who is the Queen of England in relation to Canada? Why is her presence at Canada Day celebrations any more important than any other dignitary or celebrity? Similarly, why is her grandson's presence at all important. Would we mention Paris Hilton's presence on the hill on July 1? Many Canadians know she's Canada's queen. I assume that they also know that William is the second in line, after Charles, assuming normal ascension protocol, for the throne. However Canada may become a republic before that time. So we need to explain why they're important or remove them both altogether. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry, but these two sentences put together are quite funny: "Would we mention Paris Hilton's presence on the hill on July 1? Many Canadians know she's Canada's queen.") freshacconci talktalk 19:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems nunecessary to get into everyone's role. All that needs to be expressed is that there is an official, government organised, national celebration in Ottawa, which consists of musical performances and cultural displays and is attended by any combination of the following individuals: the prime minister, the governor general, the monarch, another member of the Royal Family. Celebrities never officiate at the Ottawa ceremonies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The duke did not officiate either. He merely addressed those in attendance. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
As did the Prime Minister and the Governor General. They all officiated, as in: carried out official duties; acted in an official capacity.
Is it possible to condense the last couple of sentences of the paragraph thusly: "However, the locus of the celebrations is the national capital, Ottawa, Ontario, where large concerts and cultural displays are held on Parliament Hill, with the governor general and prime minister typically officiating, though the monarch or another member of the Royal Family may also attend or take the governor general's place. Smaller events are mounted in other parks around the city and in Hull, Quebec." The remainder - the years the Queen attended, etc., could then be shifted up to the "History" section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't know. Both Johnston and the duke participated so he did not take the GG's place. Also, I would avoid the phrase officiated as it has other meanings in English. I would use "participated" in its place. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That's why I said "may also attend or take the governor general's place", as the Queen did last year. "Participate" is okay, but I'm not sure it puts across the official nature of these people's presence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Davies Quote[edit]

I can appreciate that the article was perhaps becoming a bit overloaded with "anti Canada day" positions, but I think that we should include the Davies quote referring to the name change. His opinion shows that opposition to the name Canada Day is not simply from cranky Conservative leaning politicians and journalists. He brings a different perspective than is typical and I think worthy of inclusion, particularly as I think it is a notable quote. We could try to flesh out the pro-Canada Day position. I don't think that we are giving undue weight to the controversy at this point, as it is one of the only really interesting/notable things about the holiday. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's good to show that different people had differing opinions on the matter of the name change, but the article is indeed (to my eyes, anyway) becoming skewed not towards the controversy itself, but the anti-change side of the controversy. There's already a quote from Andrew Coyne that criticises the name Canada Day; I'm not sure we need another from Davies. At least, I believe one quote is sufficient for now, whether it's Davies' or not (though I do prefer Coyne's because it's more contemporary). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean Andrew Cohen... although it's funny that both Andrews are both on the same train on this matter. Any rate, I think that Davies is a notable enough Canadian that it is worth including his quote, as well as Cohen's, which takes a more political stance on the issue than Davies. I'm all for including perhaps some other quotes to balance out the section, I just haven't had a chance to find interesting ones. Most of the pro-Canada day quotes are not as succinct from what I have seen. Anyway, I really don't think that we are anywhere near "information overload" on this yet, so would strongly urge inclusion of all the quotes we have now. If this name change had taken place when wikipedia existed we would no doubt have a whole article on the subject. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's enough to know that there was opposition to the name change. For historical purposes it's somewhat important, but I don't think that we should have an WP:UNDUE amount of weight on either position. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Monarchist tones[edit]

This article seems to have been absolutely saturated with british/monarchist overtones. I've removed the some of it, but the article needs to be combed over and more should be removed. It adds nothing to the article and was added by a known monarchist editor. For example: "which united three British colonies into a single country, called Canada, within the British Empire". Two references to Britain within the same sentence, neither of which add anything to the article. The fact that they colonies were British is irrelevant, and that Canada is within the british empire is also irrelevant. They have been removed. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I support these edits as described. Let's try to maintain neutrality in his article. freshacconci talktalk 21:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Gee, I wonder how you know that Tdadamemd is a monarchist and that's why he added to the lead factual info about Canada still being part of the Empire in 1867 (well, he used the wording "a British territory called Canada", which I changed to "a single country, still within the Empire, called Canada", which even you have to admit was a less than pro-British change on my part). Regardless, the point is to make it clear that Canada wasn't independent in 1867. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. The Province of Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia were all British colonies heading into Confederation on 1 July 1867. At that time, those 3 colonies & afterwards the resulting country were within the British Empire. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The original edit, changing "country" to "British territory", is somewhat deceptive and very confusing. Canada became a Dominion, an autonomous, self-governing country within the empire. To refer to it needlessly (and there is really no point in doing so) as a "British territory" as if it were some tiny Pacific island is confusing to the reader not versed in Canadian politics and history. The status of Canada today is complex enough and we don't need to dive into these semantics in an article about a holiday, especially when a perfectly good word was being used already. As much as I want to assume good faith, there's a little bit of pointyness going on in an edit like that. "Country" is correct and less confusing, so why change it? freshacconci talktalk 01:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It's best to use country. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm not sure why certain editors feel the need to mention Britain at every possible turn even when it brings unjust confusion to the main point. There is absolutely no need to mention the british empire 2 to 3 times in the same sentence except for personal biases. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's been "country" since I changed it back to that in July 2010. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to mention it's within the british empire or the new version, "self-governing but not independent country". Your monarchist tones are taking away from the subject. The article isn't about the british empire or britain, or the queeen, or any of that other BS. Why not just write it like it is.
Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal statutory holiday celebrating the anniversary of the July 1, 1867, enactment of the British North America Act, 1867 (today called the Constitution Act, 1867, in Canada), which united three British colonies into a single self-governing but not independent country called Canada.[1][2][3] Originally called Dominion Day (French: Le Jour de la Confédération), the name was changed in 1982, the year the Canada Act was passed.
There is no need for all the overtones and BS. It takes away from the subject at hand. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be ok with "which united three British colonies into a single country called Canada". This is accurate and the British designation being explanatory (i.e. whose colonies were they). freshacconci talktalk 02:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I'd agree to that. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indeed. But it's also important that it's made clear Canada wasn't independent at confederation. Not everyone knows that, and those who aren't familiar with the subject can be easily misled into believing the opposite when the article also asserts (correctly) that July 1 is often referred to as "Canada's birthday".
UrbanNerd, drop the monarchist-pov-pushing bad faith accusation crap. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll drop the "drop the monarchist-pov-pushing bad faith accusation crap" when you stop actually halt the monarchist-pov-pushing bad faith editing. Your actually damaging articles very frequently. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Then take your accusations with all the supporting evidence you no doubt have and report me at the proper location. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately poor and biased editing is not grounds for reporting. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is; you're accusing me of at least breach of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:SOAP. It's needlessly bogging down what should otherwise be a simple, civil discussion about content. So, either take it where it where it counts or, if you know it won't hold up to community scrutiny (making it nothing more than a personal attack), knock it off completely. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The erasing of your comment was accidental. Sorry about that. freshacconci talktalk 02:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I assumed as much. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

On another note, the Canadian Encyclopedia interestingly skirts the issue somewhat: "Confederation, the union of the British North American colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Canada (Canada being an earlier 1841 union of Lower Canada and Upper Canada), was achieved 1 July 1867 under the new name, Dominion of Canada." For an article on a holiday, even Canada Day, we do want to avoid going into too much historical detail. I'm not sure how else we could indicate the status of Canada's independence (or lack of) in 1867. freshacconci talktalk 02:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "Dominion of Canada" can be contentious on Wikipedia, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't suggest using their wording, but I find it interesting that they state that it was three colonies united under one name, without really stating the status of that new entity. freshacconci talktalk 02:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've made clear why I think it's important to state the country didn't become independent. But, it may end up that I'm in the minority (of one, perhaps) with that opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I must apologize. I edited the sentence in question without first checking to see if there was a discussion here. On the substantive issue, I think it is debatable as to when Canada became independent, what independence means, and to what degree Canada was independent in 1867. That is presumably why others skirt around the issue, as Freshacconci points out. I have no issue with including the reference to the British Empire, as that is factually correct, and I prefer that approach to references to Canada's independence or lack thereof. I also have no problem with deleting the reference to the British Empire, simply referencing the union of three British colonies, and leaving discussion of Canada's imperial ties in 1867 to other articles. On balance, I prefer the second approach, but could live with the first. I do agree that we need only so many "British" references in that one sentence -- e.g. if we refer to the Empire, we need not specify that the colonies were British, etc.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
How can "Dominion of Canada", be contentious? Please elaborate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
There are others that will know the specific better than I do, but there have been some pretty hard-fought battles over at Canada and other articles over whether or not the country is still officially called the Dominion of Canada. As such, references to Canada as a dominion can occasionally result in re-eruptions of that battle. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
But aren't we talking about when it was formed? It was Dominion Day when I was a kid in the 60s & 70s. Not sure how this historical name can be contentious. but OK. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying it would be. I'm just telling you what I think the issue is. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I see UrbanNerd has revived his dispute over the use of the term "British Empire" in the lead. The given reasoning for removal is still that the words are "irrelevant". However, as outlined above, it is relevant that Canada didn't become an independent country on 1 July 1867, and one way to express that in a brief and historically accurate manner is to state that "three colonies [united] into a single country called Canada within the British Empire." It's possible there are other ways to say the same thing. But, before even starting the exercise of finding an acceptable alternative, the question is begged: would we be doing so just to avoid the words "British Empire" and, if yes, why? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And, he's back for more. What was said by me above on 16 November 2012 still applies now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 July 2012[edit]

Canada Day is not celebrated o the day the act was actually signed in PEI. I was moved to July 1st as on the actually day, I believe in February, most of Canada was still under snow (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In addition, please be a bit more specific on what you would like changed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what the original concern was. It's not about the day anything was signed but rather the day the legislation was enacted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


I've removed the edition of "within the British Empire" from the lead. I'm not sure it is needed in the lead, especially how there is a commemoration section directly below it where the same info is elaborated. I tried to remove it but of course it was re-added by everyone's favourite monarchist (no insult intended). UrbanNerd (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite the same, but I understand your point. The question is, how vital is that information to the phrase? Would the phrase in the lede misrepresent anything if it were removed? Is the statement supported in the article's body?
There was a discuss related to this above this current one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I made some comments in the preceeding discussion on this same subject before this new discussion was started.
To Walter's question about the need for the information about Canada's place in the British Empire after Confederation: There is no specific need for the British Empire to be mentioned; however, if there were no mention of the fact that Canada didn't become independent on 1 July 1867, readers (especially non-Canadian ones) might assume the opposite. Yes, it is explained in the "Commemoration" section; but, the lead is meant to summarise the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
As I stated in the discussion 7 months ago (above), I am not hugely fussed with keeping or removing "within the British Empire". I'm not convinced by Miesianiacal's point about independence, though. As I said above, it is debatable as to when Canada became independent, what independence means, and to what degree Canada was independent in 1867. Canada in 1867 was arguably more independent in a practical sense than a number of nominally independent European states. But I do know where Miesianiacal is coming from on the independence issue, and he's not wrong either. Ultimately, I just don't see it as being particularly important to clarify Canada's governing autonomy in 1867 in the lede of an article about a holiday, especially given the murkiness of the issue. Canada Day, unlike some other national holidays, has nothing to do with independence or lack thereof. So, I lean towards deleting the words in the lede, given there is a detailed explanation later in the body of the article (but I could live with keeping them if that ends up being the consensus). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Essentially the same opinion as Skeezix1000. The statement is still not supported in the body. It stands alone in the lede. The body discusses the role of the parliament based in London, but nothing about the Empire. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
My goodness; I must not be making myself clear. The goal is not to determine here when Canada became independent. Nor is the goal to have the British Empire mentioned. The goal is to make it clear - one way or another - that Canada did not become independent on 1 July 1867. As you rightly say, Skeezix, Canada Day has nothing to do with independence, and, in that regard, is unlike other similarly named national holidays in other countries. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that uninitiated readers - especially non-Canadian ones - will be aware of the dissimilarity and, without explanation to the contrary, will therefore be likely to assume incorrectly that Canada Day is an anniversary of an independence day.
I think we're in agreement that the above needs to be given room in the article; there doesn't seem to be any dispute over the explanation given in the "Commemoration" section of how post-Confederation Canada remained under the authority of the (imperial) British parliament and government. What seems to be in question is whether or not the aforementioned should be included in the summarising lead.
My feeling is that it should be. The fact that Canada Day is not an anniversary of the attainment of independence is a pretty salient one and can be expressed very briefly, as demonstrated in the lead's present composition. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Did anyone say that it became independent? I don't see that as an argument here or in the lede. It gained some independence when it became a nation, but to deal with the full weight of Canada's political history isn't necessary here. The follow-up paragraph explains it well. Perhaps "partially-autonomous" would be a better phrase to add. Or "nation with limited parliamentary power". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It's safe to assume many, especially non-Canadians, would assume Canada Day is an anniversary of the attainment of full independence from colonial rule (since that is commonly what similar holidays commemorate in other countries). The safety of that first assumption is expressed by the fact that this article already dedicates space to explain that Canada did not become fully independent on 1 July 1867.
But, we're talking specifically about the lead here. The lead's purpose is to summarise the body of the article (the "follow-up paragraph"s, as you call them). Should the lead summarise that part of the article that explains how Canada did not attain full independence at Confederation? I say yes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The name evolved over time as did our relationship with the British has changed over time. This needs to be expressed in the article - lead or not. Best to over inform then to think others will "get" the simple version. But as a Canadian i agree its overkill - yet if I were lets say a South African I may need over info to understand. Dame I am split on this one - thus will side with more info over less infoMoxy (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Reword Lead[edit]

As discussed a few times but never resolved, the lead needs to be rewritten/reworded.
1) As mentioned before the lead has a very "monarchist-tone" as provided by Miesianiacal, (No offence). Although I agree this is valuable information, crowding the lead and boring people with a history lesson which is repeated below in the "history" section is unnecessary.
2) I don't understand or agree with some editors inclusion of the french translation for every Canadian topic, however are we now to not only include a french translation but a french pronunciations ? This seems highly unnecessary on english wikipedia.

Proposed lead:
Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday commemorating the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867, which united three colonies into a single country. Originally called Dominion Day, the holiday was renamed in 1982, the year the Canada Act was passed. Canada Day observances take place throughout Canada, as well as internationally.

I don't like all of the italics, but otherwise the prose much easier to read. It leaves the historical-traditionalist, but certainly not monarchist, discussion to the article body.
As a side note, a glaring omission in the article is that many in Quebec do not celebrate Canada Day and celebrate St. Jean Baptiste instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing "monarchist" in the lead; UrbanNerd, it seems, simply confuses mention of a particular historical empire with monarchism.
As I mentioned in earlier debates on this subject, I feel it's important to make it clear in the lead, somehow, that Canada did not become independent on 1 July 1867. Saying the date celebrates the unification of "three colonies into a single country called Canada within the British Empire" achieves that goal. So, I have no issue with the edit proposed above, except for adding the words "within the British Empire" following "into a single country"; otherwise, "becoming a country" could easliy be read by the unfamiliar as becoming independent.
It's possible there are other ways to express the same thing. But, before even starting the exercise of finding an acceptable alternative, the question is begged: would we be doing so just to avoid the words "British Empire" and, if yes, why? Especially given my opening point about "British Empire" having nothing to do with monarchism; it's simply an irrefutable historical fact.
As for the French pronunciation: it is excessive and should go. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand that many national days are celebrate their independence, not the least is our neighbours to the south, and understand the need to describe this in the lede. Is there a way to remove some of parenthetical comments and make the lede flow more smoothly while keeping some of that information in? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just throwing this out here: "Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday commemorating the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867, which united three colonies into a single country with limited independence from the United Kingdom."
There's still no explanation, though, as to why the words "British Empire" are to be censored. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
What if we were to move the date earlier.
Canada Day is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday celebrated on July 1. The date commemorates the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867, which united three colonies into a single country with limited independence from the United Kingdom. Originally called ...
I don't know if that helps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with Miesianiacals proposed wording. Minus the UK bit which belongs in the history section. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done Lead reworded. Excessive historic information moved to history section. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
ummm.... I don't want to stir up trouble, but haven't you just implemented revised wording that exactly avoids the issue that was being discussed? the entire dispute was about the "UK bit", so it seems against the spirit of compromise to simply go ahead with a version that doesn't mention it. For the record, I think that a bit of historical context is entirely appropriate for the lead. Canada didn't really become an independent country in 1867 and to pretend otherwise is misleading. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
No, the dispute was mainly (for a still unknown reason) over the words "British Empire". However, all the shifting of other information around was not agreed upon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Could everyone stop editing the lead until we have consensus? I have reverted it to how it read originally (minus the reference to the French pronunciation - the removal of which appears to have consensus.) Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We do have consensus on the wording, but not the linking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I read - still outstanding is how to address the "UK bit" and whether it is needed in the lead or not. And not to further complicate things, but while I have always thought a "UK bit" was unnecessary for the lead, if we are going to have it then "with limited independence from the United Kingdom" is not great (it's ambiguous, unclear and misleading - if given the choice, I prefer the old language referencing the British Empire). Could we just say "united three colonies into a single dominion" and be done with it? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't outstanding among the three of us originally involved here. What you propose at the end there isn't sufficient as it fails to make clear what a Dominion was, thus not really addressing the need to be clear about Canada Day not being an independence day. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why you think that's necessary for the lead of an article that is not about Canada's political status in the 1860s. It doesn't use the what-you-think-to-be the misleading word "country", and the reader can find out more in the article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What about "Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday commemorating the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867, which united three colonies into a single country with limited independence". I do not see the need to "British up" every Canadian article. If people want to fall asleep from a history lesson they will read the history section. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"With limited independence" is the ambiguous, unclear and misleading. Frankly, the old British Empire language was better. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I would favour "within the British Empire". I don't really see why this should be controversial: it's a fact that clearly describes what Canada's situation was at its formation. "With limited independence" is quite vague. Limited in what way? By whom? Why? "within the British Empire" gives readers a pretty quick and clear idea what the situation was without having to get bogged down in petty details (if they want, they can read on). I don't see why it should be removed from the article. Whether people like it or not, Canada was a part of the British Empire for much of its history, and it is very relevant to the celebration of its creation, since the holiday is supposed to celebrate the formation and history of the country. Whitewashing that aspect from the article removes exactly the kind of context that a curious reader might want to read about. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally agree, but should point out that nobody was suggesting whitewashing anything. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
By whitewashing I simply meant removing any specific detail, or "naming names". Not a criminal conspiracy or something like that. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I never had any problem whatsoever with the use of "within the British Empire" to communicate that Canada didn't become independent on 1 July 1867. Only one editor has ever (so far) objected to those words, on the mistaken belief that they somehow create a "very monarchist tone" (and continuing to misattribute their original insertion into the article to me). No further explanation for why "within the British Empire" should be replaced or simply removed has since been given, despite a few requests for such.
I'm also fine with the use of "with limited independence from the United Kingdom". Though, I do prefer it less, given it's just a more wordy way of saying the same thing as "within the British Empire". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone shouldn't read this page and be under the impression that Canada is some backwater British colony. This proposed lead would solve the problem by explaining what it celebrates with links to the articles, while the history section would elaborate on these topics:
Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday commemorating the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867.[1] Canada Day celebrations take place throughout Canada as well as among Canadians internationally with fireworks, parades, barbecues, carnivals, picnics, concerts, political speeches and ceremonies. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Readers unfamiliar with Confederation won't know what "commemorating the Confederation of Canada" means. It's also still not clear in that proposal that independence wasn't gained on 1 July 1867. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
That's why it links to those articles and the details are in the history section. It's important that readers aren't led to believe that the level of independence in 1867 is the same as the level of independence of today . UrbanNerd (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)



i've removed yet more monarchist rhetoric by everyones favorite monarchist editor. The fact that the queen, or a princess, or prince was in Canada during a Canada Day is of little to no importance. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As notes tend to do, it provides detail about the sentence to which it's attached; namely, "the locus of the celebrations is the national capital, Ottawa, Ontario, where large concerts and cultural displays are held on Parliament Hill, with the governor general and prime minister typically officiating, though the monarch or another member of the Royal Family may also attend or take the governor general's place." Since the monarch or another member of the Royal Family officiating alongside or in place of the governor general is a relatively rare event, listing when such took place provides readers with that information, which is exactly what an encyclopaedia is supposed to do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand you have an ENORMOUS love affair with the monarchy, but listing the years they have attended Canada is going too far. Should we list when Bryan Adams was the main performer ? It's just as important to the average Canadian. You really have to stop adding monarchist tones to every article. I'm trying to be civil here, but you are truly damaging articles. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Bryan Adams is a red herring. The sentence the note is attached to speaks about people who officiated. Bryan Adams did not ever officiate. If you'd like to expand on who's performed at Canada Day events, you can do so. Monarchism is another (very tired) red herring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the Queen came is irrelevant. The fact the Prince came is irrelevant. Plain and simple. If you would like to start an article on "Co-officiating of Canada Day Celebrations in Ottawa" that go ahead. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Who officiates at Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa is entirely relevant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not an article about the celebrations in Ottawa, nor is it an article on who co-officiates the celebrations of Canada Day in Ottawa. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
So, you're suggesting the information about the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa be detelted entirely? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm suggesting that who co-officiates the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa on any given year is irrelevant to this particular article. Perhaps you could start a list-article and list who co-officiates the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa year by year. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Then why did you say "This is not an article about the celebrations in Ottawa"?\
If the Ottawa celebrations are relevant (which I think they are) and, by extention, so is the information "where large concerts and cultural displays are held on Parliament Hill, with the governor general and prime minister typically officiating, though the monarch or another member of the Royal Family may also attend or take the governor general's place" (which I also think is), then so too are the atypical times when the monarch and another member of the Royal Family attended or took the governor general's place. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
If your going to mention that they co-officiated the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa, then why not mention everyone who the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa ? Only you think that the Queen or Prince is somehow more relevant than many other famous people, delegates, etc. that have co-officiated. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Nobody else has officiated (definition: to act in an official capacity): the celebrations are hosted by the Government of Canada, the officials from which who attend have always been the prime minister and the governor general, sometimes along with the monarch or another member of the Royal Family or in place of the governor general. Performers are guests. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I for one see no harm in listing who officiated in which years if properly sourced, whether the GG, queen, PM, or Bryan Adams. The article is about Canada Day, for which the celebration in Ottawa has to count as the centre piece and some details about how it has historically unfolded are very relevant. Considering that the monarch is the head of state, her presence seems rather important, and I don't see how it is "monarchist" to mention that she attended various celebrations. It sheds some light on the relationship of the head of state to the country she represents. Whether you're a die hard monarchist or republican that is relevant information. Provided it isn't given undue weight, I see absolutely no problem. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, a list of the names of every person who officiated at Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa would basically be a list of every prime minister and governor general since 1958 plus the list of dates of royal attendance that UrbanNerd keeps deleting. Given that we already have a list of Prime Ministers of Canada and a list of Governors General of Canada (which I've now piped to from "prime minister" and "governor genereal", respectively, in that sentence), it seems redundant to list each one since 1958 here again. However, as the participation of royal officials is the atypical occurence, listing the dates they attended provides information not found elsewhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I gather you won't have a problem with me adding every other notable person that has co-officiated the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa ? UrbanNerd (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
On principle, no. But, I already explained above that those people are included in List of Prime Ministers of Canada and List of Governors General of Canada, making listing them here again rather redundant. Given the ubiquitous presence of both those figures at Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa, it'd be more informational to list the times either wasn't there, if any. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Peregrine, I think, offers a common sense and sensible approach. I fail to see how mentioning the participation of a country's head of state in their own national celebrations is somehow pushing a political agenda. I also fail to see how adding pertinent information related to Canada's monarchy is something to be disparaged, since Canada is a monarchy as a statement of fact. If Canada were a republic and someone was constantly adding monarchical references, then I could see the problem, but certainly not when monarchical information is being added about a monarchy. Trackratte (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop the edit warring[edit]

Neither UrbanNerd nor Miesianiacal are new editors. If you can't discuss the changes that need to be made I will request a page lock in the state the page was in before the editing began. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would encourage you to do so. UrbanNerd doesn't seem to believe the WP:BRD cycle applies to him. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

History section[edit]

The user UrbanNerd/Po' buster recently deleted sourced material from the "History" section, along with undoing some other editors' minor additions and changes. The edit summary given was "Ridiculous additions". Given that "ridiculous" is an entirely subjective classification of the additions, UrbanNerd can hopefully here give a more detailed explanation as to the exact nature of the problem with the additions, as he sees it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You added material which was filled with british trash as usual. I reverted. Now please follow BRD, and not start yet another edit war. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
From what I can see, the only substantial content additions that were made were describing how the day was celebrated in 1867 and about the first government organised celebrations, which were sourced from one of Canada's national newspapers. Whether you like the content or not is another issue, but I don't see how this is 'rediculous British trash', unless I'm missing something. What exactly do you disagree with? trackratte (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The material added was sourced and more than relevant. How it is "british trash" is beyond me, as it dealt in large measure with fairly straightforward and relevant information about the celebration of Dominion/Canada Day.... ie... ringing of the bells in 1867, Diefenbaker's changes etc... IMO UrbanNerd is behaving in an uncivil way, and not in good faith. It's not good enough to simply assert that sourced additions are "nonsense" without any further elaboration. That kind of attitude will poison the atmosphere and is not conducive to reaching a workable consensus. You're citing WP:BRD but skipping the "discuss" part, which misses the whole point. Please, there's room for rational disagreement, but at the moment this seems to be a simple grudge match on the part of urbanNerd. I'd say that these edits constitute vandalism unless UrbanNerd can explain the deletions more clearly. Please consult WP:CIVIL for a refresher. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The additions are perfectly fine. I think they should stay as they round out the article well. Calling a good faith addition to an article 'trash' is a rather clear violation of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
"British trash" is even more incomprehensible than "ridiculous additions". An emotive reaction to material isn't justification for its removal; a rational explanation of the supposed problem with the material is required in order to find an amenable resolution. Since most people don't seem to understand what issue you find with the material, either, a more robust elucidation is required from you (though absent your usual personal abuse would be preferred). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This editor again - never seen anyone with such a reputation still editing here - just revert when you seem him edit without though. Changes are just fine.Moxy (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Moxy, may I remind you this is not the place to gossip with the ladies, please keep talk on topic. thanks. Once again Miesianiacal believes that BRD doesn't apply to him and he can add his usual british trash to every article and when reverted just reinstates and starts an edit war. I have never seen an editor with such a enormous bias and such disregard for BRD still editing here. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree not the place - but you have a real problem here - people simply don't listen to you anymore even if your right because of your reputation. Best to simply move on when you see edits by people you have conflicts with.Moxy (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canada Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See also[edit]

The see also section had a single Canadian celebration listed, Canada Day Countdown in New Brunswick. Apparently it's some small town concert they put on for Canada Day. I removed it from the see also section for multiple reasons.

  1. Having a partial list of celebrations for every town across the country isn't encyclopedic.
  2. The article mentioned does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events
  3. The article mentioned does not cite any sources.
  4. This Canada Day page shouldn't be used for every small town across Canada to promote their local concerts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia than have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy thoroughly and see if you would like to nominate it for deletion. However, as it sits right now, it is an article about the subject Canada Day and should be included in "See also" as such. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

So I gather you would have no problem with me adding several more Canada Day concert related articles to the see also ? (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a policy based reason for this link to be in the see also section here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a policy-based reason for it to be removed either, but if anon knows of other articles about Canada Day celebrations, then we should probably move them all to a section and add prose to describe this clearly notable activity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
And how is an article on a concert with no notable headliners, that does not cite any sources, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events a "clearly notable activity" as you describe ? I'm very curious. (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC), Nominate it for deletion then if you think so! No one has a problem with it except you. Maybe instead of complaining about it, you should try and clean it up? As it stands, there is no reason why it should be removed as it has a wiki article and is on the subject of Canada Day. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is "you" is quotes? Did you say it out loud while typing it ? not sure what you were going for there. Also no need for exclamation marks! Not sure why you're getting so upset over a non-issue. Perhaps Walter and Vaseline should read a few articles on civility to other editors and article ownership. I'm just trying to improve the article. Looks like i ran into the town sheriffs. (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't care whether the article gets deleted or not. That isn't what I'm trying to do. You two are doing a very good job at deflecting and avoiding the issue I'm trying to fix. I am saying the article that is linked is not worthy of being linked to an article as important and notable as this one. It isn't my job to go fix that article, improve it, or get it deleted. I'm trying to improve THIS article. Deleting trash links is part of said improvement. (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's exactly that, a non issue. That is why I used the '!' since it is fairly annoying to argue over this. Also, I used italics not quotes, and it is used to put emphasis on the word 'you'. We are in no way displaying page ownership, it is merely the fact that an article related to this one belongs in the See also section. It's not anyone's job to anything on wiki, but if it does have a wiki page, it is deemed notable unless nominated for deletion to prove other wise. So if you do not want to delete it and Walter and I certainly won't do it, you're the only one who has a problem with that article, hence you could have it nominated for deletion so it wouldn't be included with this article. Until proven it isn't notable by deletion or such, it should belong in this article as it is part of the subject matter. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
You're logic is a bit breathtaking. And for the record you are absolutely practising article ownership traits. You couldn't stand that an Anon dare edit "your" page. You also have a history of bullying and edit warring which you only recently a few days ago admitted to while you were engaged in yet another edit war. Besides all of this User:Dbrodbeck seems to agree that it has no place in your article. If it is such a non-issue for you then why not just let a simple link to an unsourced, out of place article be taken off ? (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. Believe what you want, I can't make you do anything. For the record, I never admitted to anything, what happened a few days ago at a different page was a misinformed anon since the other anon didn't understand the convention of European dating systems for football matches. Not bullying and not edit warring, he was misinformed and he realized it after we discussed. This is besides the point anyway! Yes, I used an exclamation mark. WP:JUSTDROPIT. Dbrodbeck seems to be neutral at this point. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel, I mean yeah though it seems odd to put in this one thing. But really, this is not a hill I wish to die on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest that you just drop it Vaseline. It is a minor change that improves the article. Let your ego let this one go. Maybe I can see if an admin could look into this if needed. And maybe a few other things at the same time. (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
the article is not improved by its removal. It standard policy to link to tangentially related topics in see also sections. It therefore makes sense to leave it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Always with the retaliation eh? First with the user talk template and now with the "just drop it"? Good stuff. Who are you to say it improves the article? I am not saying it wouldn't improve it and I'm not saying it will, however, since it was there to begin with we are going through the discussion per WP:BRD and as of now we have one user which is neutral, one which is opposed, and two which are for. Unless more people chime up, this discussion favours keeping it. I don't see how an admin will help (they have better things to do), this is something that should be taken to the talk page to discuss locally. But hey, it's your prerogative. It has nothing to do with my ego, I can assure you I won't lose sleep over this :) Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


In other news, I have AFDd Canada Day Countdown. Please everyone weigh in [5]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The article of discussion has now been deleted. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canada Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


I see a little editwar over "This is a misnomer, as Canada Day is the anniversary of only one important national ". I too agree this wording is messed up. Even a 3rd grader can tell us Canada day is the celebration of the formation of a new country. Why are we even mentioning all the other legal stuff that has nothing to with this day. Calling BS on this.--Moxy (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't know if the word "misnomer" is the best word. I think the article is quite clear however that Canada Day exists to commemorate and celebrate Confederation which occurred on 1 July 1867 and marked the creation of the Dominion of Canada, and since its renaming to a more generic "Canada Day" (akin to a "US Day" instead of "Independence Day" has become a more general national celebration. Stating that it is "Canada's Birthday" is an inexact genteelism.
Now any discussion on the "birth" of Canada is likely to devolve into a simple debate on what the word "Canada" means, is it a nation (social entity), a state (political entity), a country (geographic entity), or something else? After all, Dodek states in his book that "'Canada' as a political entity consisted of Canada East...and Canada West" (as of 1840), and that "Canada existed for thousands of years" but at the same time "was born on July 1, 1867", precisely because he makes the distinction between Canada as a nation and country, and Canada as a state. For example, a country is simply "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory" which of course Canada clearly was prior to Confederation, whereas a state, defined as "nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government" did not come about until Confederation where Canada became to be considered a semi-autonomous political community within the British Empire. And of course as a wholly independent state as of repatriation.
Perhaps removing the loaded word "misnomer" and sticking to the facts is a better way forward.
I made a slight tweak to the phrasing within the mainspace: "Although Canada existed prior to 1867, within both the French and British empires, Canada Day is often informally referred to as "Canada's birthday", particularly in the popular press. However, the term "birthday" can be seen as an oversimplification as Canada Day is the anniversary of only one important national milestone on the way to the country's full independence, namely the joining on July 1, 1867, of the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into a wider British federation of four provinces (the colony of Canada being divided into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec upon Confederation)." trackratte (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Better .....added - Trevor Harrison; John W. Friesen (2015). Canadian Society in the Twenty-First Century, 3e: An Historical Sociological Approach. Canadian Scholars’ Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-55130-735-0. --Moxy (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)