Talk:Dominion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Newfoundland - when a Dominion? 1855? 1907? 1931?

wasn't Newfoundland a Dominion? When did it become one?

---

A very good question: Newfoundland enjoyed near-complete internal self-government from 1855 until the creation of an appointed Commission of Government in 1934. The declaration of the 1926 Imperial Conference stated that "The Governor of Newfoundland is in the same position as the Governor-General of a Dominion", indicating clearly that Newwdoundland was not then considered technically a Dominion, though enjoying many of the same rights in practice. Newfoundland was, however, defined as a Dominion by the Statute of Westminster (11 December 1931), so Dominion status lasted in theory for 26 months.

However, the Statute did not itself constitute a change in the territory's de facto constitutional status, and Newfoundland never wielded the same kind of diplomatic independence as Canada or Australia came to enjoy. I think the territory's real status is in some doubt, and have therefore not included it among the Dominions proper, i.e. those former British dependencies which possessed full effective sovereignty within the Empire. - David Parker

For what it is worth, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was determining the Labrador boundary between Canada and Newfoundland in 1926-27, the reference reads "In the matter of the boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the colony of Newfoundland in the Labrador Peninsula, between the Dominion of Canada of the one part and the colony of Newfoundland of the other part. Forts and trading posts in Labrador Peninsula and adjoining territory". I have bolded the word colony. Library and Archives Canada lists several publications arising from this case 1926-27. This seems to suggest that as far as the legal authorities were concerned (and none are higher than the Privy Council) Newfoundland was a colony in 1926-27. --BrentS 02:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A good source; so it seems Newfoundland remained a self-governing colony until 1931.Grant65 (Talk) 06:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that Newfoundland was the first "Dominion" in 1855 is misleading. There is no proof for this. I suspect that what Newfoundland achieved in 1855 was responsible government, a form of self-government where the premier/prime minister directs the executive rather than the appointed governor. So far as I can tell, the word "dominion" made its first modern appearance in 1867 in the British North America Act. So I think the chronology should make this clearer. Do Australia and New Zealand's constitutional acts use the word "dominion"? Or is dominion more a "type" of colonial government.--BrentS 15:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the question of self-govt and responsible govt, I wrote the par on the introduction of these to the colonies, and I checked the dates thoroughly, but an error or two may have crept in.

It comes back to the question of what a dominion is; there is clearly usage of "dominion" before 1867 and whereas the D. of New England was clearly not a "capital-D Dominion", in the later sense, whereas there seem to be a number of sources that refer to Newfoundland as being a "dominion" in 1855(?)

Compared to Canada,[1] "dominion" is rarely used within the Commonwealth of Australia, except by scholars.[2] The only exception I can think of in popular culture is the Interdominion event in harness racing, so called because it also involves horses from the country that used to be called the Dominion of New Zealand....where the word is still quite common it seems.[3] Grant65 (Talk) 17:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Newfoundland was granted responsible government in 1855, but did not gain Dominion status until 1907. In 1933, Newfoundland reverted to colonial status due to bankruptcy. As a result, the Parliament of Newfoundland was abolished & a 6-man Commission of Government was instituted under the chairmanship of the Governor. 3 of the 6 members of the Commission of Government were Newfoundlanders, & the other 3 members were British Government appointees. This lasted until 1949, when the result of the 1948 referendum was put into effect. A majority had voted in favour of union with Canada. It is interesting to note that the Viceregal representative under the Dominion retained the title 'Governor of Newfoundland'. There was never a Governor-General of Newfoundland. - (Aidan Work 02:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

Canadian provinces before 1867

The article on dominions notes the Australian states, NZ, and Newfoundland all had internal self-government before Canada became the first dominion in 1867. True. But the Canadian provinces which joined in 1867 and the later additions also had internal self-government. Quebec and Ontario (Lower and Upper Canada respectively), Nova Scotia, PEI, and New Brunswick all had parliaments prior to 1867. As the article notes, Newfoundland also had a parliament before 1867. I'm not sure about the Prairie provinces or British Columbia.

Upper and Lower Canada united in 1841 and had a single legislature from 1841 to 1867. B.C. had a royal governor but no legislature until 1871, when it joined Confederation. Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory had no organized government other than the Aboriginal governments and the Hudson's Bay Company.--Indefatigable 16:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Responsible government came to Canada in 1848 under Lord Elgin. See the article on him and the Province of Canada. Responsible government basically means self-government in internal matters without interference from the governor or governor-general. Foreign and military affairs remain with the imperial government.--BrentS 02:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Self-government

I have altered the text to make it more relevant to Dominions other than Canada. I have also introduced the concept of a self-governing colony, which is a term widely used in Australia and New Zealand at least, to refer to the intermediate historical stage between Crown Colony and Dominion status (a hiatus which lasted 57 years in NZ and 46 years in most of the Australian cases). A new page, "self-governing colony" also needs to be written. Possibly the stuff about New Zealand, the Cape Colony, etc getting self-government needs to be moved there from the Dominion page? (Grant; March 3, 2004.)

Have you seen the page on Crown colonies? To my mind any material either belongs there or here. Andrew Yong 19:10, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andrew, I did see it, but as I said, and at least for Australasian readers, there was a long, separate stage of constitutional development, i.e. self-governing colony, between Crown Colony and Dominion. I think this needs to be pointed out more strongly in the Dominion text, given Australia and New Zealand's prominence among the Dominions. Crown Colony, to me, as a long-time student of British Empire history, implies direct rule from London, whereas self-governing colonies tended to be independent states in everything except name. (And from my reading of the pages on Canadian history, it seems to have been the case there also, in the provinces formed before 1867, although I will gladly defer to the experts ). (Grant; 11pm UTC+8, March 3, 2004.)

Perhaps, but where do you draw the line between self-governing colony and a pre-1931 dominion? 1867 seems to me an arbitrary line, since the Dominion of Canada was constitutionally not all that different from the self-governing Australasian colonies. But if you have enough content to create a new page on self-governing colonies without too much duplication of content on the crown colonies and dominion pages, do as you see fit. This to me is the main issue. Andrew Yong 23:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Newfoundland: PM or premier?

There are at least as many web sources referring to Philip Francis Little as Newfoundland's "Prime Minister", as there are calling him "Premier". Even the Canadian Parliament refers to these early first ministers as Prime Ministers.[4] The two terms, etymologically, are identical and "Premier" is often used instead of PM (as in the "Chinese premier"), depending on conventional practice. These days it is really only in the federal systems of Canada and Australia that the two are distinct offices. However, I think we need some adjudication on this, as it is important in assessing whether or not Newfoundland was a dominion in 1855.Grant65 (Talk) 15:54, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

There is no practical difference between a "premier" and a "prime minister" in the Westminster system. Premier was widely used in 19th century Canada to refer to Macdonald, Mackenzie, Thompson, Laurier. The Newfoundland Heritage site says the term prime minister of Newfoundland came into use after 1901. It is not anything to get exercised about. Premier was likely used more commonly before 1901 just as it was in Canada in newspaper reports.--BrentS 02:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, but it's not true for Australia. I don't believe a PM has ever been called "premier" within Australia, and it causes bemusement when foreign media refer to the PM as "the Australian Premier, John Howodd" etc. Grant65 (Talk) 06:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Correction, from a search on Google[5] it seems the term "federal premier" appeared occasionally in Australia during the negotiations for federation and just after it occurred, in the 1890s and early 1900s.Grant65 (Talk) 06:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite Feb 10, 2005 Reasons

After some research I have rewritten this historical section. First Newfoundland was not a dominion in 1855. What Newfoundland achieved in 1855 was "responsible government" (source Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador volume 2 (1984) Government article). It makes no difference if Little was called "premier" or "prime minister"; either title is appropriate in the Westminster system and is really a matter of local practice. Page 628 of this encyclopedia has an extensive discussion of Newfoundland's "dominion" status and I have quoted from it re the Nfld legislature never approving sections 2-6 of the Statute of Westminster (1931). Also Newfoundland never joined the League of Nations, and permitted the UK to conduct its external affairs, although it insisted upon consultation especially on anything to do with the fishery. In 1939 Newfoundland did not make any separate declaration of war as did Canada and in 1945 it did not apply for separate membership in the United Nations. All these reasons are given on p. 628 of the Encyclopedia, a collective work by many scholars. Nfld became a dominion in 1931 where it is mentioned in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster, but it chose not to exercise all of the functions allowed to a dominion. Prior to that it was a self-governing colony, and the Encyclopedia even has a section in the Government article with this heading "Self-Government 1855-1934". As for responsible government, Nova Scotia is the first colony to achieve this status, not the Province of Canada. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Parliamentary government in British Columbia dates from the inauguration of the first legislature of the Colony of Vancouver Island, Aug. 12, 1856, but responsible government was not achieved until confederation." This makes sense as merely to have an elected legislature is not a sufficient test of "responsible government". To have "responsible government" the executive power must be answerable to the legislature and the people, i.e. the Crown's power must be exercized by and with the consent of the legislature, hence the term "Governor-in-Council". I was doubtful of the phrase "dominion status" as there is no statute laying out such a term until much later than 1867. All "dominion" meant in 1867 was an avoidance of "kingdom" or "colony", but as many have argued that did not mean that Canada was not a colony, just a different kind of colony. Finally, unless someone can come up with documentary proof of some British colony possessing the name "dominion" between the 18th century and 1867, the Dominion of Canada seems to be the first modern use of the term. Maybe some astute individual in the Colonial Office remembered the term and resurrected it in 1867 for Canada, just as today someone in the British goverment has resurrected Prince Albert's title as Prince Consort of Queen Victoria for Camilla Parker-Bowles, said to be styled Princess Consort. Hope this helps.--BrentS 02:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada

On July 5, 2005, User:64.231.245.210 added these words:

The government's usage of Dominion when referring to the country is rare, but officials from the Ministry of Canadian Heritage have confirmed in recent times that the official name of the country is indeed still the Dominion of Canada. The Constitution Act, 1982 changed nothing in this wording.

Can anyone provide any evidence to support this claim? If it is true, then changes must be made to Canada and Canada's name to reflect this. If not, then it should be deleted from this article. Ground Zero 21:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree: if the editor who added this cannot support it, the passage should be deleted. The two main arguments are (1) the official name has always been "Dominion of Canada" and has not been changed (2) the official name has never been "Dominion of Canada". The third argument (the name used to be officially "Dominion of Canada" but not anymore) does not hold water, because no one can point to an official document that changed the name. Unfortunately, this "officially changed theory" is what you have implied by your recent edit to Politics of Canada. Indefatigable 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Canada used to be styled as the "Dominion of Canada" in official documents (banknotes, for example, and there are Royal Proclamations that have used it) so referring to that as the "former official style" is correct. The "style" is not the name. There may be a better way of getting that idea across, however, so please feel free to change what I've written. Regards, Ground Zero 21:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made this deletion. It should be restored if evidence to support it is provided. Ground Zero 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Style and Title" means long form name

This is a very old arguement. I support the position that the long form name of the country formed on July 1, 1867, was and is today the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. The overwhelming majority (i.e., the consensus) of people here hold the view that the only name of the country founded on July 1, 1867, is simply just Canada. I support the position that this "constitutional literalist" interpretation of letter of the constitution in fact violates the spirit of constitution that the Fathers of Confederation intended (i.e., the Fathers of Confederation intent was to designate that the long form name of the country as the Dominion of Canada).

If one carefully inspects all of the relavent amendments to the British North America Act for the first 50 years of this country's existance (i.e., 1867-1917) one will note the explicit inclusion of the long form full name of the Dominion of Canada (and correspondingly use of Canada as a short form name) in every salient document.

The term Style and Title (or just Style, or Title alone) does in fact mean "the long form name". This is borne out when one studies the rules of the Order of Precedence (literally meaning "who proceeds first").

70.30.193.143 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the Wikipedia article Canada's Name#Use of Canada and Dominion of Canada has it right: the only legal name of the country is "Canada", but the official title is "Dominion of Canada". This is consistent with the terminology used on the Canadian Heritage website: [6]. If you look at modern international treaties to which Canada is a party, it's never referred to as the "Dominion of Canada". For example: [7]. There, Germany is referred to by it's long-form name, "the Federal Republic of Germany", while Canada is referred to as just "Canada". --Mathew5000 01:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "dominion" shouldn't normally be capitalized

It's a normal word: [8] Jonathan David Makepeace 01:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)•

"dominion" has a broader meaning which Britannica isn't recognising (see dominion (disambiguation); this article is specifically about the Dominions of the Commonwealth.Grant | Talk 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, "dominion" is not normally capitalised, when used in the sense of a kingdom or area over which power or sovereignty is held, or in the sense of that power or sovereignty itself. But "Dominion" is capitalised in the context of territories like Australia, Canada or New Zealand in the 19th and early 20th centuries, because in that sense "Dominion" referred to a particular type of entity within the British Empire, pseudo-self governing states which were not republics but which had more control over their own affairs than self-governing colonies.

The distinction has become a bit confused of late in the lede, so I've altered that to hopefully make the distinction clearer. --bainer (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite authority for that? I've scowered the Canadian government's style guide for any exception to the general rule. There doesn't seem to be any that would call for the capitalization of the word dominion when referring to dominions of the Commonwealth. Here, for example, is a page from Veterans Affairs on which it is not capitalized (1st paragraph under "Newfoundland goes to war): http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/FirstWar/fact_sheets/somme

Or here the British High Commission to Nigeria (see the first paragraph under British Nationality Act 1948, usage continues throughout the text): http://www.britishhighcommission.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1107298156418

Or here a page from the Institute of Commonwealth studies (you'd think they'd know, eh?): http://commonwealth.sas.ac.uk/british.htm

Jonathan David Makepeace 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan David Makepeace. What is the beef with Dominion? The capitolised Dominion has a specific context, and is historically correct. The plain fact of this seems to escape you. Perhaps screwing with British Commonwealth of Nations Flags was not enough ... you now want to re-write the Constitutions as well?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "dominion" refers to a class of entities, not to a specific entity, therefore it is a common noun, like any other common noun, e.g., the republics, the provinces, the states, the sovereignties, the duchies, the principalities, etc. Jonathan David Makepeace 16:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When referring to a kingdom or area over which power or sovereignty is held, or that power or sovereignty itself, "dominion" is a common noun. However, when referring to this particular kind of non-republican self-governing territory, it is a proper noun and should be capitalised. Any constitutional law text which discuss the legal features of the latter will capitalise the word. This is an example of a resource at the British National Archives which capitalises the word when referring to those self-governing territories. Here is a contemporary source which capitalises the word when referring to those self-governing territories. Here is a paper discussing the Statute of Westminster which capitalises the word when referring to those self-governing territories.

Random information pages on the web aren't necessarily going to make the distinction. Any text, however, which is written in a context in which the distinction between "dominion" (a territory, or power over such) and "Dominion" (a particular type of self-governing territory within the British Empire) is significant (which includes this article) will capitalise accordingly. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your phrase "this particular KIND [emphasis mine] of non-republican self-governing territory" fits the definition of a common noun perfectly, it is a class of entities, not a specific entity. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that this article unequivocally describes British Dominions within the Empire and Commonwealth (self-governing colonies), not dominions (i.e. generic dependencies of Britain). The distinction is even discussed in the article at some length, with a historical development. I think documents such as the the Constitution Act (1867), the Statute of Westminster (1931) and the Balfour Declaration (1926) are pretty much as authoritative than random documents found on the web. Read any of the references found at the bottom of the page. All refer to "Dominions". You will note that the article also refers to "dominions" where it discusses generic territories ruled by the Sovereign. It is possible that the references you cite refer to this, or that they simply get it wrong. in any case, an article on "dominions" would not be appropriate in an encyclopedia; it would be more of a dictionary entry. --Soulscanner 09:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the entry for 'dominion' in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, sense 4:

• 4 - often capitalized : a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth of Nations other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges the British monarch as chief of state

Read: often, not '(always) capitalized'.

At this point, I don't really care whether instances are capitalised or not throughout. IMO: I would actually say not to capitalise (in partial concurrence with JDM), or to do so judiciously depending on the context, since all nouns were capitalised in British legislative style (e.g., "One Dominion under the Name of Canada"): so, 'dominion(s)' in general parlance but 'Dominion of Canada', 'Dominion forces'. To do otherwise appears superfluous.

In any event, as with this (POV) edit, removing such a reference from the introduction is reason enough to revert edits to the contrary. Don't do it again. Quizimodo 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the definition from Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English "dominion • noun 1 sovereignty; control. 2 the territory of a sovereign or government. 3 (Dominion) historical a self-governing territory of the British Commonwealth." Note: 3 (Dominion), not "often" or an alternative. The second reference for the article, [9] capitalizes "Dominion" throughout. If you look through [10], the 1911 version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, "dominion" is sometimes capititalized, sometimes not, but when referring to the countries of the British Empire, it is ALWAYS capitalized. In this Wikipedia article, "dominion" (almost) always refers to these countries or their specific status, and should be capitalized consistently. Silverchemist 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, (2004, p. 443):

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

As with the Merriam-Webster entry, sense 3 is of relevance here (while sense 4 is more applicable to specific Canadian/Newfoundland usage, e.g., in the Canadian Encyclopedia). Quizimodo 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We now have some cases where there is no rhyme nor reason to the capitalization. For example "The Balfour Declaration (1926) and the Statute of Westminster (1931) ended Britain's responsibility for the defence and foreign affairs of the Dominions. Significantly, it was Britain which initiated the change to complete independence for the dominions." IMHO this random, inconsistent use of capitals looks sloppy and unprofessional, and the only apparant reason is to satisfy "often" , but not "always" in some dictionary entries. (btw, Wiktionary lists Dominion, referring to the British Empire countries, as a proper noun [[11]]). We have no issues with capitalizing "Queen" (even when not followed by a country name or her personal name) or "Commonwealth" consistently, do we? Isn't the rationale the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverchemist (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All things are not equal: the above sample of text merely indicates that diligence in editing is required.

Anyhow, as above, I don't really care whether it is capitalised or not throughout the article; thus, I have restored the prior article. However, I have retained the reference and variants in the introduction, the blatant and continued removal of which -- in breach of Wikipedia policies -- will not stand. Quizimodo 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization (continued) and African "dominions"

I have capitalized most instances of the word "Dominion" when it refers to certain countries within the British Empire between 1907 and 1948. I did not make this change for the African countries which gained independence in the 50s and 60s. I looked at their histories in Wikipedia and found no mention of "dominion" or "Dominion" in any of them. I assume that none of these counries considered themselves "dominions" (or at least none of the Wikipedia editors did). This perplexes me. I would like this article to be consistent with those other historical articles.Silverchemist 22:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quizimodo you are violating WP:Consensus here. We have conflicting sources, this is clearly a matter of opinion about style and under Wikipedia policy, the original style of Dominion should stand unless there is consensus for change. Grant | Talk 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What conflict, and what consensus? I am merely providing a reliable source about capitalisation that should support content on the page. Others have been provided above. If you can provide a more germane citation regarding this (e.g., from a 'Commonwealth' source), be my guest. Until then, refrain from removing it and from attempting to push your opinion of 'style' down our throats. Quizimodo 22:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a long established consensus about "Dominion". No other editor thinks that it should be "dominion". If there is no consensus for change then WP policy says that the statsus quo should hold.

Furthermore, your source isn't a relevant source because it is an American dictionary. The article is about an institution in Commonwealth countries. It uses Dominion because that is the style in Commonwealth English. Spelling and usage in American English are not relevant to this article. Grant | Talk 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies are abound. First of all, there is no consensus to support your viewpoint: at least one other editor above concurs. As well, please consult the definition above from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, sense 3, which is the major one that applies here ... and it isn't capitalised. Your other points are of little relevance. Quizimodo 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The British National archives capitalises the word.
• Legislation in Australia uses "Dominion".
• The Canadian Privy Council Office: "Dominions".

In addition, The Canadian Encyclopedia uses "Dominons".

The problem is that there is no consistency in the way that official sources capitalise or do not capitalise the word. That being the case, WP policy is that the status quo should hold. Regards, Grant | Talk 05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You have just made the point: if there is no consistency, the Wikipedia article should reflect that. So, there is no problem; thus, the status quo (i.e., the current article and lead, in place for the better part of two months) should hold ... and that entails the notation and reference upfront. Thanks. Quizimodo 16:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This Article Is Confusing

This article is confusing, there's no definitive statement as to a Dominion's status. Were they countries in the full sense? Were they de facto countries but legally subsets of the Empire? When did that change if ever? This should be explained. - MichiganCharms 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes the article is very confusing - mainly because the terms ' Dominion ' and ' Dominion status ' are misunderstood . Whether a territory was called a Dominion or not did not change its legal/political status . Territories within the British Empire whether referred to as Dominion(of Canada) ,Commonwealth (of Australia) or Union(of South Africa ) were still classed as colonies or at best self-governing colonies - that was their legal/political status . ' Dominion status ' was defined in 1926 as 'autonomous Communities within the British Empire '- it was the Statute of Westminster 1931 that defined the degree of autonomy that the defined set of British territories had . Political equality was granted which meant legislative equality . But legal Sovereignty remained with the British government . The British Government could still legislate for a 'Dominion' but had agreed not to do so without the 'request and consent' of the Dominion . In strict legal theory the Imperial Government could still legislate for a Dominion but it had agreed 'in writing ' not to do so without consultation .

The Statute of Westminster also stated that no new legislation of the British Government after 1931 would refer to the specified territories as 'colonies '.

'Dominion status' meant very autonomous but not Sovereign .

The article states that the term 'Dominion' fell into disuse after 1949 which is correct but the concept of 'Dominion status ' continued on - in fact Fiji achieved that status in 1970 and was also renamed the Dominion of Fiji . lejon Lejon (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC) I believe that Ghana also had ' Dominion status ' from 1957 until 1960 . And another - Nigeria from 1960 to 1963 ...

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Grant | Talk 05:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link...

This link appears to be dead, is this the version that was intended?--Gregalton 13:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tags

Please do not remove neutrality tags or quotes. Doing so violates Wiki policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Until this note, you have not discussed your edits or tags nor have you garnered any consensus in support of them. Insistence on doing so, given your prior performance at 'Canada' regarding this topic and the evidence presented here and there, is arguably disruptive -- any edits made or tags placed which further demonstrate your ill-behaviour will be dealt with appropriately. End note. Quizimodo (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tags do not require consensus. They indicate a dispute. Ther eis one here. Please review Wiki policy. You can link directly from the tags. Reason for tags can be reviewed in history. Request for quotes backing up claims is provided below. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quote from Wikipedia policy on NPOV disputes. It does not require consensus to put one on. Indeed, disputes like this one demand it. It requires conensus to remove it.

"Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."--Soulscanner (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your placement of these tags is more to further a point, one which you are either unwilling or unable to corroborate. Until you do, they do not belong; however, I would welcome the intervention and attention of third parties or experts in scrutinising said material, since you haven't really provided any. Quizimodo (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tags were to indicate disagreement about beginning of Dominion status. We have a dispute. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

--Soulscanner (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)== Dispute over Canada's current legal title ==

• There are no sources quoted here that describe Dominion as Canada's current legal title. Please provide quotes from the four sources cited that verify the claim that Canada's current legal title is that of a Dominion and what the significance of this title is in Canadian law.
• The sources cited come from government websites and are not attributed to any authors. There is no way of telling whether they are based on credible legal opinions.
• I would also like a source that precisely defines what a "legal title" is in this context. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Current title? I thought Canada dropped the Dominion of.. thing years ago. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quizimodo (talk • contribs)

Actually, all the sources provided indicate the legal or official nature of 'Dominion' as Canada's title. It is ironic that you reference How Canadians Govern Themselves by Eugene Forsey in your edits, yet reject it when it comes to this point; for example:

• The two small points on which our constitution is not entirely homemade are, first, the legal title of our country, “Dominion,”... (p. 8)

In addition:

• Rayburn, Alan (2001). Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names (2nd ed. ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. pp. 13-4. ISBN 0-8020-8293-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help): "Dominion continues to be part of the official title of this country..."
• Oxford Companion to Canadian History; Gerald Hallowell, ed; (2004), p. 183: -- dominion The title conferred on Canada by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, whereby the provinces declare 'their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom'. The title was chosen over the founding fathers' preference for 'Kingdom', allegedly to mollify Canada's republican neighbour but still represent the founding monarchical principle. Beginning in the 1950s, as an affirmation of independent status and to make a break with the colonial past, a homegrown *governor general was appointed, a *national flag adopted, and 'dominion' gradually dropped from official and popular usage. Despite the anguished protests of monarchists such as Eugene *Forsey, who saw dominion as 'the only distinctive word we have contributed to political terminology' and one 'borrowed throughout the Commonwealth', the final nail was driven by the 1982 statute changing the holiday commemorating Confederation from Dominion Day to Canada Day. Ironically, defenders of the title dominion who see signs of creeping republicanism in such changes can take comfort in the knowledge that the Constitution Act, 1982, retains the title and requires a constitutional amendment to alter it. — J. E. Hodgetts

implies autonomy that Canada did not have in 1867

I have no problem citing opinions of "monarchists such as Eugene *ForseyEugene Forsey" as long as they are clearly labeled as monarchist POV

Well, this is not a call for you to make: while authored by Forsey, HCGT is actually published by the federal government. Do you opt to refer to the government as monarchist, and Rayburn and Hodgetts too, both of whom indicate the same thing? Can you provide one reputable source that indicates something different? Next. Quizimodo (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is whether Forsey the author is a monarchist. Is he or is he not a monarchist? The quote says so, not me. When he says that Canada's official title is still a Dominion, is he not stated a monarchist point of view? I think so. What do you think? --Soulscanner (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They may not elaborate about the significance of the title in law, but they don't necessarily need to: they are what they are.

Conversely, you have provided none to dispute the assertion, resorting to argumentum ad nauseum and hyperbole. But, this has been pointed out multiple times on the 'Canada' page. Given your intransigence, I have rolled back you subjective edits and, unless compelled otherwise or until you edit in a collegial manner, will continue to edit appropriately. Quizimodo (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Title of dominion was to:

The purpose of the Dominon title was:

* to mollify Canada's republican neighbour

* represent the founding monarchical principle

* NOT to recognize new automomy; on the contrary, it confirmed subjugation to the British Monarch and Parliament; Dominion status

Your point is unclear. Quizimodo (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dominion" title did not confer Dominion status (semi-autonomous colony); that definition did not exist until 1907; Dominion meant "possession of the Queen, like her African colonies. I think that is clear. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is your opinion. Quizimodo (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the opinion of Eugene Forsey, Andrew Heard, and Frank Scott. It's documented in the article. It's not my opinion, and I never presented it as such. Please provide me with a legal opinion from comparable constitutional scholars that indicate that Dominion status (not title) existed in 1867. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's your opinion of theirs. Since the lead is not making such an assertion, you seem to be flogging a dead horse: even if 'dominion' status came about in 1906, the title was still conferred on the prototypic 'dominion' -- Canada -- 39 years earlier. Your insistence on placing a start date in the lead, given the ambiguity of source matter and your own confusion, is perplexing. 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead implies that this was the definition in 1867. It was not. That is why we need a beginning date. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no: the lead indicates "prior to 1948." Quizimodo (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1867 is not "prior to 1948"? --Soulscanner (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Justification for tags

Since some feel that tags are unnecessary or even disruptive, I'm justifying them here. Tags are a way of telling the reader which statements are being debated on the talk page.

• tag added: specifying need for documenting the beginning of the usage cited in lead sentence (I claim above that it starts in 1907, as cited in the reference). Other disagree. --Soulscanner (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What you claim is unclear and irrelevant. Misinterpretation of references and, as pointed out above, over-reliance on other unclear ones is insufficient. Until a clear citation is provided to justify your position (not yet done), the current text shall stand. Quizimodo (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• tag added: Monarchist view of Senator Forsey on current legal title of Canada (claim is that it is has a Dominion title) needs to be balanced with that of the mainstream in Canada; most in Canada are indifferent to monarchy. This point of current title is contested by several editors here, and the statement is made as an undisputed fact. The final section is now okay, because it at least implies that claims to Canada's current so-called "Dominion title" are largely monarchist. This is not echoed in the lead. --Soulscanner (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More than one reputable source indicates this. What the mainstream asserts is beside the point, since citations corroborating this point of view haven't been produced. The only references provided are those in support of the assertion. Can you produce any reputable citations that counter this? This has been brought up on the talk page before -- amidst polemicism, no counter-evidence has ever been provided (or at least in clear abundance). If this is not done within a reasonable timeframe, said tags will be removed. Quizimodo (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you'll find that the gradual fall into disuse of the term and it's elimination from legal and constitutional documents can be legitimately interpreted as a general indifference to the whole idea of "legal titles" as this one. It is the common POV in Canada, which does not make it right or wrong, but worthy of mention. The monarchist perspective is legitimate too, but it needs to be identified as monarchist POV. I'm not saying it needs to be removed: I'm saying it needs to be qualified. --Soulscanner (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This is your opinion. Any assertions regarding commonality and disuse of the title are already indicated in the article; anything extraneous and unsourced (as is your opinionating) doesn't belong and needn't be mentioned -- that is how Wikipedia operates. Quizimodo (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• POV tags alert reader to issues in the lead being discussed on this page. --Soulscanner (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AFAICT, you are the only advocate for these tags. Your reasons for the tags are mismatched: for example, you indicate that the upfront assertion regarding the disuse yet legality of the title as it applies to Canada requires balancing, when sources clearly and equitably corroborate both notions. Can you produce any reputable references to counter this? If not within a reasonable timeframe, the tag will be removed. Quizimodo (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• It is for the person seeking that information be included to demonstrate its verifiability. Therefore Soulscanner is within his rights to place a {{nonspecific}} tag as mentioned. I am not so sure about the {{lopsided}} tag. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Be that as it may, said editor has been insistent upon including a start date which (per discourse above) is not indicated in the sources he has produced. At least the current version accommodates for this until clear citations can be provided, so the 'nonspecific' tag seems extraneous. Quizimodo (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The statement presents a monarchist POV as a fact. It links to the bottom section, in which it is hinted that it is monarchists that maintain that Dominion remains Canada's legal title. That tilts the statement in the intro towards a monarchist POV that is identified as such in the final section. I will gladly accept a statement that clearly identifies Canadian monarchists as those who hold this view. --Soulscanner (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, you have demonstrated your unwillingness or inability to properly interpret source matter. No such assertion is made that 'Dominion' as Canada's title is a monarchist POV, only that it is the title and that its retention in the constitution may provide solace to those who are not advocates of republicanism. Read the quote from Hodgetts carefully:
      • "Ironically, defenders of the title dominion who see signs of creeping republicanism in such changes can take comfort in the knowledge that the Constitution Act, 1982, retains the title and requires a constitutional amendment to alter it."
    • 'Monarchists' may be discouraged by increasing republicanism, but the removal of the title from the constitution is irrespective of that, requiring a constitutional amendment. Its authority is a given. Do you maintain that Hodgetts and Rayburn are also monarchists, if only to divert attention from your own bias?
    • Apropos, the last clause of the introduction links to the 'Canada' section only because Canada is an oddity among Commonwealth realms in this respect, being the only such prior dominion that retains 'dominion' as its title. Get with it, get over it. Quizimodo (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay. You are free to see it that way. I've made my interpretation clear, and you've made yours clear. We both see the final sentence as acceptable, but for different reasons. We've resolved the dispute about it by cleaning up the references a little and by agreeing to disagree. The dispute over the statement in the intro remains. Unless I see it qualified in some way, the tag will stay. --Soulscanner (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Please provide sourcing here to back your position. I don't see ANY. Even Admin Stifle expressed uncertainty about the 'lopsided' tags. Otherwise, it merely confirms your intent to disrupt and make some obtuse point and further demonstrates your inability to compel through rational means. End communication. Quizimodo (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • My interpretation is what it is, as is yours. --Soulscanner (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
            • That is not good enough, which is why we defer to information which we can readily verify ... as such, this does not bode well for your irreverent interpretation. Quizimodo (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Just to point out that my opinions on editorial matters like whether a tag is valid or not are only as good as any other user's. I'm just a regular user who happens to be able to block people and delete pages. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Given the ongoing edit-warring, this page is protected for a week. Please use that time to come to a consensus on what to include and how to include it. If you manage an agreement before that time, drop by WP:RFPP to request unprotection. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre 1907 definition of Dominion

Prior to 1907, dominions referred to overseas possession of British monarch, of which Canada was one, not autonomous colonies. This started changing in 1907. The 1907 switch was a question of nomenclature, and did not establish a second colonial status. Several quotes in text from referenced, scholarly sources note that the beginning of different dominion status above that of colony was established in practice in 1919 and formally recognized in 1931. Other unverifiable claims seem to imply otherwise. Neutrality tag should stay until this issue is settled. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue with seeking further justification for the current date -- what is clear is that 1907 was not the starting point of 'dominion' status. You again are misinterpreting the source to justify your position: this was also pointed out on the 'Canada' talk page. As such, the current text will hold until there is clarification. Quizimodo (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we have a disagreement. I've provided papers from scholarly sources saying that it started in 1919. POV tag stays until disagreement is resolved. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dominion status began in 1919. Quote clearly shows this.

"The First World War ended the purely colonial period in the history of the Dominions. Their military contribution to the Allied war effort gave them claim to equal recognition with other small states and a voice in the formation of policy. This claim was recognized within the Empire by the creation of the Imperial War Cabinet in 1917, and within the community of nations by Dominion signatures to the Treaty of Versailles and by seperate Dominion representation in the League of Nations. In this way the "self-governing Dominions", as they were called, emerged as junior members of the international community. Their status defied exact analysis by both international and constitutional lawyers, but it was clear that they were no longer to be regarded simply as colonies of Britain."

Scott's assertion that the great colonies were styled dominion only after the war is contradicted by various sources. An example: ‘At the 1907 Imperial Conference, the self-governing colonies (including Australia) were officially termed Dominions. However, this term did not represent a change in colonial status.’ It pays to consult a variety of sources, and not to put too much store in a single text, especially one written in 1944 in an American journal (American journals have never been very good at analysing Commonwealth politics).--Gazzster (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Frank Scott was a Canadian lawyer and legal scholar and worked at McGill. You'll see that if you check out the link. Lots of Canadians publish in American journals because they are more prestigious and widely read. Pierre Trudeau articled under Scott, who was a civil libertarian and famous for fighting Duplessis's repressive regime in 1950's Quebec; he was enormously influential on Trudeau in convincing him of the necessity of a Charter of Rights in the Constitution and to repatriate the constitution. You miht think of Scott as the grnadfather of our Constitution. I'm also fully aware that scholars will disagree on these issues; that's why I've quoted three distinguished Canadian scholars here. That being said, I don't disagree with you, and your source does not contradict Scott's assertion. Your source says that calling colonies Dominions did not represent a change in colonial status. Scott would agree with this becasue he's saying that joining the Imperial War Cabinet in 1917 and signing the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 DID change Canada's colonial status in some vague, indefinable way. That's what Dominion status is ... you're somewhere between a colony and an independent country ... a "junior member of the Empire", as Scott put it. This is all interesting, but beside the point right now. I have no problem with the 1907 - 1948 date in the first line. I object to the 1867 date because it did not make Canada dominion in the sense of being a semi-autonomous polity. --Soulscanner (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a disagreement which is promulgated merely by your waffling, lack of clarity, lack of comprehension, or all combined. The quote above doesn't quite indicate what you say it does: the above indicates dominion status may have begun in 1917. Since you were previously adamant that 1907 was the start date, again due to a lack of comprehension, at this point anything you provide or opine about shall be treated with skepticism. And, if nothing compelling is produced in short order, the uptop tag will be removed. As well, your continual addition of dickery tags for assertions already validated (e.g., the tag you just appendedto a sourced statement about the need for a constitutional amendment to remove 'Dominion' as Canada's title) will be dealt with. End note. Quizimodo (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise I see no indication in that paragraph that dominion status began in 1919. Theres however one phrase in that paragraph which is pertinent: 'their status defied exact analysis'. The truth of the matter is that British law never defined what a dominion was. The 1907 Imperial Conference decided that the name should be applied to a number of self-governing colonies (ie., Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the South African colonies) to distinguish them from 'crown' or directly ruled colonies. Another term used was 'great colony'. In other words, dominion was simply another word for colony. As time went on, other colonies were named dominions also. It was never more than a convenient catch-all term. --Gazzster (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case. As pointed out in the article by Heard, Canada earned it's independence by acting independently, not by gaining titles. The real question here is whether it was used for the purpose of identifying a semi-autonomous polity in 1867 as it was in 1907, 1919, 1926, and 1931. The answer is no. Before 1907, the word was used as a generic reference to am overseas possession of a British monarch. That's why it was adopted in Canada: to uphold the monarchist principle. It was NOT to recognize any level of autonomy or recognition of self-governing status; not until well after 1867. After 1907, it began to be used to recognize self-governing status of various colonies. That's why I prefer 1907, as stated in the Hillmer reference. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there agreement that the meaning of "dominion" in 1867 was not the same as its meaning in 1917? --JimWae (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading what's here, I'm not sure there is. Gazzster's right that "Dominion" became another term for colony, but it was a specific kind of colony; the kind of colony Canada became in 1867, when it was legally termed as a Dominion. So, within the Empire it seems that Canada became the model in terms of both governance (semi-independent self-governing territory under the British Crown) and style (Dominion). --G2bambino (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada was no more self-governing in 1867 than Nova Scotia had been in 1866. See quotes in article from Heard. Canadian independence was not granted by titles, it was taken by Parliamentary action. This was certainly the case by 1907. That's why NZ and NF wanted to be known as dominions too. It had nothing to do with the naming of the country in 1867, though. --soulscanner (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'the kind of colony Canada became in 1867'? Canada was not the first self-governin g colony. All six Australian colonies, for example, were self-governing for at least a decade before Canada was 'legally termed a dominion'?--Gazzster (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and, of course, there were Canadian self-governing colonies before Confederation. But, after 1867, as far as I understand it, the newly federated Canada was given more freedom in self-governance and less oversight by Westminster. Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and the rest followed suit, and it was this amount of self-governance that set the Dominions apart from simple Crown colonies. --G2bambino (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dominion" was not used to to indicate "semi-independent self-governing territory under the British Crown". In 1867, it was used to refer to any colony subservient to the British Crown and Parliament. The word Dominon was used to uphold that Monarchical principle. --Soulscanner (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, let's not try and make things so complicated. I suspect that we are presenting our interpretations of what dominion means. Let us stick to the barest fact- It was a self-governing British colony.G2, what is a 'semi-independent self-governing territory'? 'Self-governing' territory is enough, surely? But my objection was not to your definition, but to your idea that Canada is some kind of 'model' dominion. The six colonies I referred to were already self-governing in the sense Canada was well before 1867. They had their own elected legislatures, run according to Westminster principles. --Gazzster (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No extra autonomy given Canada 1867

Referenced sources given in response to request for citations clearly indicate that no extra autonomy was passed from Britain to Canada. Some editors deny this. Lets all list once how we interpret the following passages specifically in terms of whether new powers or autonomy was transfered from Britain to the federal government.

Forsey

"By the time of Confederation in 1867, this system had been operating in most of what is now central and eastern Canada for almost 20 years. The Fathers of Confederation simply continued the system they knew, the system that was already working, and working well."

• The system Forsey is referring to is [responsible government] which was attained in the 1840s. Fathers of Confederation adopted the same system. Some powers already assumed by Legislative Assembly were passed to the federal level of government. No new powers came from Britain. --soulscanner (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Heard

At its inception in 1867, Canada's colonial status was marked by political and legal subjugation to British Imperial supremacy in all aspects of government - legislative, judicial, and executive. The Imperial Parliament at Westminster could legislate on any matter to do with Canada and could override any local legislation, the final court of appeal for Canadian litigation lay with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, the Governor General had a substantive role as a representative of the British government, and ultimate executive power was vested in the British Monarch - who was advised only by British Ministers in its exercise. Canada's independence came about as each of these subordinations was eventually removed.

• What part of "colonial status" and "political and legal subjugation to British Imperial supremacy in all aspects of government" is ambiguous? Where is the "dominion status" here? "Dominion" clearly implied subjugation to the Imperial government in 1867. --soulscanner (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep rehashing the same ol’ quotes, but fail to grasp or properly interpret them. The Forsey citation proves nothing: the fact that 'responsible government' (a system of parliamentary accountability) was continued after Confederation has little to do with the fact that, at that time, Canada was reorganised into a federal state, and ... the Heard citation above contradicts another which you've provided (also by Heard): "When the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 it was granted powers of self-government to deal with all internal matters, but Britain still retained overall legislative supremacy." Read: Canada was granted powers of self-government, which it did not have previously. The prior polity did not have that order of self-government, and it also acquired more autonomy over time as each of these 'subordinations' were removed. Thus, you have not justified the relevant assertions in the article regarding Canada's autonomy, and need to do a much better job of doing so. Please provide clear, direct quotes to support assertions made. Quizimodo (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate from Forsey that those powers granted were more than the powers granted the preceding colonial assemblies. We need a reference to show they were, especially when Heard denies this this with very clear quotes. --soulscanner (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are drawing conclusions from Forsey which are not stated. The Heard references are contradictory. The burden of proof is on you to prove the assertions made, which you have not done, not on me or others to stoke it. Quizimodo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Which conclusions am I drawing? --soulscanner (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As before, erroneous ones. Quizimodo (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Be specific. Which conclusion am I drawing from Forsey that is wrong? --soulscanner (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you be specific and provide clear and direct quotations as requested: the above is insufficient.

As well, your hypocrisy is grating, deferring to Forsey in this instance, yet rejecting his assertions when you don't agree with them regarding the legality of the title, etc. Enough. I will comment next when there's reason to. Quizimodo (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have. The Heard quotes say that Canada remained subjugated to Britain. How does Forsey contradict that? What claims am I making about Forsey that are wrong? Please assume good faith and dispense with name calling. --soulscanner (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not. Heard indicates that Canada was granted powers of self-government while still remaining subjugated to Britain -- the two can coincide. Forsey makes no claim in the above passage regarding Canada's autonomy, only about the continuance of responsible government. Thus, your assumptions are erroneous.

And, coming from G2b's 'associate' (in your words), you reap what you sow. If you wish to engender good faith, edit as such, remain silent, or withdraw. Wikipedia isn't your mother. Quizimodo (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets stick to the subject. Heard clearly states that the new federation got no new powers or autonomy from Britain. Do you agree or disagree with that?

I disagree with your interpretation of the subject matter, including Heard's assertion. Quizimodo (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind me. Do you agree or disagree with Heard? --soulscanner (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Minding you aside, I neither agree nor disagree with Heard -- it is what it is. Quizimodo (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete my reference to Heard? It clearly supported that Canada was granted no new powers in 1867. --soulscanner (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion, Forsey quote shows quite a bit. His quote speaks directly to the issue at hand. Responsible Government is a system of accountability where the government is responsible or accountable to an elected assembly. It is synonymous with internal self-government in the British Parliamentary tradition. If this system of government is adopted in complete contintuity, it follows that the level of autonomy pretty much matches unless mention is made of some power being transfered from the British government. I fully agree that Canada was granted powers of self-government which it did not have previously. This is quite evident because the federal level of government did not exist before 1867. The point is that these powers were transfered from the provinces, not Britain. They were the same powers granted the provinces before confederation. No references here show that specific powers were transfered from Britain. Theres absolutely nothing here to back up such claim. Without this, there is no new autonomy. The prior polity did have the same order of self-government as before. The fact that no specific powers can be cited is telling. The Heard and Forsey quotes in particular show that no powers were transfered from Britain to Canadian institutions. It made no asense to delete the requested references. Indeed, Heard shows that the noose tightened in the first 30 years. It wasn't until well after 1867 that the noose got looser instead of tighter. --soulscanner (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

An analogy might be helpful.The six colonies of Australia were self-governing, with their own legislatures. In 1901 they federated. A new layer of government was established, the Commonwealth government. But the legislative powers of the colonies (now called states) remained unchanged. Similarly, the federal government had no more independence from Britain than the states. Could the same hold true for Canada?--Gazzster (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes --soulscanner (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with soulscanner, from the opposite angle: in the late 19th and early 20th centuries the powers of a self-governing colony were no less than those of the collective Canadian governments (federal and provincial) in 1867 or the collective Australian governments (federal and state) in 1901. Federalism, within the British Empire, including the failed Imperial Federalism, was arguably more a matter for convenience for the UK, than it was inspired by local nationalism. Federal governments had importance in dealings with the UK, but only at the expsense the provinces/states. The rigid division of powers (relative to the United States) meant that the Canadian and Australian federal governments had little to do at first, although creeping centralisation has occurred in both cases. Grant (Talk) 06:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.28.37 (talk)

That pretty much nails it, Grant. G2Bambino has said 'the newly federated Canada was given more freedom in self-governance and less oversight by Westminster. Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and the rest followed suit'. First of all, I think that's a pretentious claim for Canada to make (and I don't believe it does). So what is it about a federated Canada in 1867 that makes it more independent from Britain than say, the colony of New South Wales, the colony of New Zealand, or the colony of Natal, all of which had their own legislatures? Let's cut the rhetoric and get down to specifics.--Gazzster (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, G2Bambino is right, but not in the context of 1867 mentioned here. Canada did assert itself more than the other countries in the early 1900's, but this was several decades after Confederation. This is why smaller colonies at the 1907 Imperial Conference wished to be called Dominions. That's why the 1907 date is important. That's a year where we can day that the word Dominion started to mean something different than a simple territory subject to British Imperialism. The point here is that it is neither Confederation nor the naming the federation a Dominion that brought this autonomy. The autonomy was taken by Canadian Parliementary initiative, not granted by Britain. It is misleading to say that Canada attained more self government in 1867. --soulscanner (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Do Forsey and Heard references support that no new autonomy was transfered from Britain at Confederation?

Just to focus discussion here a bit, lets stick to the point. The topic in the other sections seems to veer off into politics of the early 1900's, which is not the issue here. Quizimodo has deleted two footnotes to Forsey and Heard sources from the statement:

"Neither Confederation nor the adoption of the Dominion title, however, did not grant extra autonomy to the new federal level of government".

I maintain that the above Forsey and Heard quotes accurately support that statement. I put the Forsey and Heard quotes in specifically to support this statement. In the case of Forsey, he states that some of the limited powers of self government granted to the smaller pre-confederation colonies under Responsible Government were merely transfered to the new federal level of government: limited self-government was passed from the smaller colonies to the federation. Heard states bluntly that no new status of autonomy was granted this colonial federation, and indeed, that Britain passed uncontested laws throughout the late 1800's specifically limiting autonomy. I think these quotes support the statement.

Do the Heard and Forsey quotes support the above assertion? Should these references replace the request for references tag?

Please list your opinions here. Also, in the interest of settling this specific issue, please stick to the issue. If we wish to discuss broader issues, we can do that in different section. --soulscanner (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - As argued above.--soulscanner (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral - I'm not sure, but I'm willing to learn. Awaiting the Mediation. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Soulscanner has indicated -- erroneously? -- that I have deleted the Heard reference. If I did, I apologise, but I fail to understand what you are referring to. As well, it wouldn't be so hard to edit if you refrained from moving the references to the bottom of the section with each of your edits, as you did in our exchange last evening.

In any event, I advocate that more information and clearer citations are required and will not pass judgement on unclear references, nor will I sanction incomplete or haphazard interpretations of them (as is currently the case). So, no (as pointed out above, Forsey's cited comments concern 'responsible government' and Heard is apparently contradictory) -- on its face, the contentious statement remains unsourced. However, I can be convinced otherwise. Quizimodo (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Heard and Forsey quotes are right below the statement, and reproduced above. Do you agree or disagree that these quotes support the statement? --soulscanner (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already commented. Quizimodo (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear whether you agree or disagree. You have claimed before that you disagree. Have you changed your mind? --soulscanner (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When have I claimed this? As stated, I neither agree nor disagree with the sources -- they are what they are. I disagree with your interpretation of them. Simply put, the assertion is unsupported by the references provided and, despite reams of text, you have yet to meet the burden of evidence regarding this. End of note. Quizimodo (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your interpretation, in one sentence, of what Heard is saying? --soulscanner (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• No and debatable Having not read much of this debate yet, I would throw out the Forsey quote immediately. It only states that Responsible Government had been in operation for sometime previous. It makes no claim for or against any increase in autonomy by the Government of Canada. Heard is closer to your argument, and states that the Government of Canada remained largely subjugated to the Government in Westminter, which was true, and that Canada failed to assert full autonomy until these subjugations were removed, also true. There is little doubt that Canada's autonomy was in doubt for many, many years (at least until the Halibut Treaty in 1923, if not later), but I question whether Heard is arguing against Canada being fully autonomous in 1867, or against it being semi-autonomous in 1867. It strikes me as being closer to the former. I am not saying your assertion is wrong, but I don't consider eithe quote to be full-out support of your position. Resolute 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a cogent oponion. The amount of autonomy Canada had was determined by the system of Responsible government. It entrusted certain powers to Parliament, and other roles to the GG, Senate, etc. The balance between these is what determines the level of autonomy; the more you put in Parliament, the more autonomy Canad ahas. This balance did not change with confederation. Parliament and the old assemblies had equal power within the system. That is part of what Forsey is saying. There was no change in the role and relative power of each of these wings of the government. There was no need for it, because it was working well.

As for the Heard argument, those could just as soon apply to the colonies before confederation. The point is that neither the act of Confederation or the naming of Canada a Dominion granted Canada any new autonomy.

The question here is if Confederation and the granting of Dominion power made Canada more autonomous, not if Canada was semiautonomous: obviously, it had been for years before 1867. There is no evidence of this in 1867. There are no scholarly references here that say that to stand in opposition to Heard. If you examine laws he quotes on the page, he seems to say that there would be more limits placed on Canada's autonomy for the first 20 years or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the breakdown of how Responsible Government divides autonomy/power, however, the Forsey quote simply states that the system itself continued to operate as it has. It does not make any claim about whether any more power was downloaded onto the Parliment at Confederation. Given I do not know the context from which Forsey's statement came, I could not state one way or another whether he is saying that no additional powers/rights were given to Parliment, therefore, I continue to maintain that his statement is invalid in the context of your question.

Heard's arguments do, as I stated, apply closer to your argument. He certainly makes it clear from the quote that he didn't think much of what power Canada did have. I'd almost be tempted to toss the statement as being highly biassed if I didn't mostly agree with it. I do tend to agree with your argument as a whole, but these two quotes, Forsey especially, do not strike me as being the best citations for such a statement. I would be curious to see what statements are made to support the existing claims in the article(s). Resolute 06:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Heard's statement's are my argument. The question here isn't whether you agree with Heard; the question is if the text agrees with Heard's statement. It is unambiguous. If you find fairer ways of introducing Heard's statement, I'd like to see them presented. You might say they are biased, but they represent an informed bias by a historian, and they agree with their presentation. Forsey's quote is relevant because it indicates that the self-government Canada did have (semi-automomous to me would mean that Canada had a final say in some matters, which it did not) arose out of Responsible Government, which pre-dated Confederation. I do not see any scholarly references here that would indicate that Confederation granted Canada any new powers in 1867. I'd like to see a list of them included here if someone finds them. I've provided a list below of powers that Heard says remained with Britain. --soulscanner (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes The quotes support the statement that no further autonomy was aquired by federation. That's by my reading. But of course, we haven't defined our terms. What does 'autonomy' mean exactly?--Gazzster (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• No Neither quote states that no further autonomy was gained after 1867; one points out that responsible government continued after 1867, the other points out that Canada remained subsurvient to Westminster. Neither assertion is incorrect, however, a semi-autonomous polity can have both the same form of government from previously and be within the jurisdiction of a higher authority; hence: semi-autonomous, and not fully autonomous. The country can have the same form of government from before federation, and still be within a higher power's jurisdiction, all while gaining more autonomy from that overreaching body. --G2bambino (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mornin' G2! Please define semi-autonomous. I would have thought a polity was either autonomous or not.--Gazzster (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple search, Gazzster: [12] largely self-governing within a larger political or organizational entity. --G2bambino (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, dictionary acknowlwedged, thank you. But still needs analysis, don't you think? So, for example, Scotland, Kosova, the Falklands Islands, Birobijan, the Faroe Islands, Catalonia, Norfolk Island would be semi-autonomous, as opposed to just autonomous, which would be?--Gazzster (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this relates to the question being asked. Soulscanner is canvassing us to see if anyone agrees that Forsey and Heard assert Canada gained no new autonomy with Confederation in 1867; he is not here asking us whether or not Canada was semi-autonomous in 1867 (which it obviously was). --G2bambino (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice dodge there, G2. You are using terms that others do nor understand to answer the question. So I believe my query was relevant.--Gazzster (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Do you? --G2bambino (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like G2 being rude first thing in the morning to get the blood going. I will try once more to ask in my politest and most respectful typing: please explain the difference between semi-autonomous and autonomous. You are using semi-autonomous in your answer to the query. I don't understand what semi-autonomous means as opposed to simply 'autonomous'.--Gazzster (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm only reacting to the tone of your questioning. For the purposes of this discussion I don't believe I have to explain the difference between autonomous and semi-autonomous. You can find that information on your own elsewhere, I'd suspect. --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had the courtesy to refer me to a reference to 'semi-autonomous' then surely you can explain what 'autonomous' might mean. I'm not trying to be a dickhead. I genuinely want to understand your answer to the question! You seem to be making this a personal thing.--Gazzster (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have confused the issue by including commentary on the use of "semi-autonomous"; Soulscanner has raised this as a concurrent issue both here and at Canada, and, to be honest, I'm sometimes having a hard time separating all the parallel debates. Does my alteration to my answer above make it more clear? --G2bambino (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. If I may be so bold as to posit another question (which strikes to the heart of the question): in what sense can an autonomous polity 'have the same form of government from before federation, and still be within a higher power's jurisdiction, all while gaining more autonomy from that overreaching body'? This requires a bit of explanation from both parties.--Gazzster (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat this to death, but an autonomous polity can't; hence Canada was semi-autonomous after Confederation - one could argue it was such until 1982. --G2bambino (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. You've brought up the autonomous vs semi-autonomous thing again. To my understanding, autonomous means self-governing with certains powers, such as foreign affairs, reserved to a higher power. So semi-autonomous would mean that it is not even self-governing, but halfway there. And I don't you mean to say that Canada was half self-governing to 1982.--Gazzster (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, I hope I don't sound condescending, but a simple look at a dictionary will show you what "autonomous" means - 1: of, relating to, or marked by autonomy; 2 a: having the right or power of self-government b: undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained <an autonomous school system>; 3 a: existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid> b: responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole <an autonomous growth>; 4: controlled by the autonomic nervous system. (I've highlighted the definitions I think are pertinent to our discussion.

I believe that from 1867 onward, Canada's level of semi-autonomy gradually crept closer to full autonomy; a goal that was finally reached with the 1982 patriation of the constitution, thereby removing the final ability of Westminster to legislate on behalf of Canada. The question it seems we're dealing with here is whether or not Confederation in 1867 marked a jump in the level of semi-autonomy towards full independence (some 115 years later...). --G2bambino (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I know now that we both agree on what semi-autonomous or autonomous means. Why can't you describe Canada after 1867 as autonomous then? I thought it was.--Gazzster (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys gotta learn to 'indent' (the way I did). At the rate your discussion is going, it'll be near impossible to read. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Where'd everyone go? Do I have bad breath? GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We love ya GoodDay --soulscanner (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Listing subordinations that did not change in 1867

• Comment on G2 -- What you say is true in theory. You can remain subservient in some areas, and become more autonomous in others. However, if you read what Heard says, you'll see that he says it didn't happen to Canada in 1867. Lets count the ways:

1. "The Imperial Parliament at Westminster could legislate on any matter to do with Canada and could override any local legislation"... that did not change

2. "the final court of appeal for Canadian litigation lay with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London same old, same old

3. "the Governor General had a substantive role as a representative of the British government, and ultimate executive power was vested in the British Monarch - who was advised only by British Ministers in its exercise." this is the same

4. Canada's independence came about as each of these subordinations was eventually remove

True, we had responsible government, which made it responsible to Parliament, but Forsey explitly points out that we had that before. That was not a change. So Heard says none of these 'subordinations' changed with Confederation. It's a pretty complete list. Which ones did Confederation then get rid of 1867? Am I missing some aspect of governance that the federal government assumed that the British Parliament had previously exercised? Anybody have a reference as good as Heard that mentions them? --soulscanner (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

G2 thinks I am being pedantic and abstruse, but we really do need to understand what we mean by 'autonomy'. The question is: did federation make Canada any more autonomous than its constituent states were before 1867? And do these Forsey and Heard people support one view or the other? We are having this discussion because we do not agree on the meaning of the term. I understand an autonomous state to be one which has self-government (or home rule, to use a British term) in its internal affairs. Some fields of governance: foreign affairs, defence and others, are reserved to another power. The term 'semi-autonomous' doesn't help, because it doesn't really mean anything. If a state is partially self-governing (which is what semi-autonomous means), you may as well say it is directly ruled with some controls over its internal affairs. Now, do we know that the Canadian provinces were self-governing (autonomous) before 1867? Yes. Do we know that they were after 1867? Yes. Do we know that the federal government had a greater degree of self-government than the provinces did? If so, how was that manifest? This is what I mean when I say we need to get down to specifics. What specifically about federal government did or did not mark it as having a greater degree of its own affairs than the provinces had separately?--Gazzster (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion on this page for some time and am a little reluctant to get drawn into a prolonged debate. I think that Canada's military contributions to the British Empire in the latter part of the 1800s and very early 1900s are a good indication of increased autonomy. There may not have been any formal granting of such autonomy, but it was exercised. Desmond Morton in A Military History of Canada (McClelland & Stewart 1999, ISBN 0-7710-6514-0) describes how Canada refused a British request for troops to be sent to fight in Africa in the mid-1880s and the initial denial of troops to fight in the Second Boer War (internal pressures eventually resulted in Canadians fighting in this war). The reluctance of French Canada to support Imperial conflicts likely hastened Canada's movement towards greater autonomy. Silverchemist (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; to my mind part of the very reason behind Confederation was to empower the colony economically, politically, and militarily against the influences of the United States - including their trade practices and idea of manifest destiny - coupled with Britain's waning desire to maintain and organize troops abroad. --G2bambino (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely acknowledge silverchemists point. There is also the "Tin Pot" navy issue of the early 1900's that added to this fledgling exercise of autonomy. A very small amount of autonomy began to be exercised (it was not granted; quite the contrary) a few decades after Confederation, and it lead to recognition throughout the Empire that Canada was indeed a problem for British Imperial interests; this is what increased the currency of the word "Dominion" at the 1907 Imperial Conference. The increased French Canadian nationalism at the turn of the century made it difficult to send troops in support of Imperial expansion in Africa, particularly to combat Boer insurrections; the Boer situation was, after all, very much analogous to that of French Canadians. Laurier was forced to walk a fine line between the strong Canadian identity of French Canada and the strong British identity found in English Canada (except among many Irish).

However, this illustrates my point: challenges to Imperial authority happened after 1867. Neither Confederation nor the "granting" of the Dominion "title" did anything to change Canada's colonial status, other than to transfer some (if not most) existing powers of Responsible government to the federal government (as Forsey points out). It's not Confederation or being called a Dominion that won this autonomy, it is Parliamentary initiatives under Responsible Government that did. It is not being called a Dominion that made Canada exercise autonomy, it is exercising autonomy that raised the currency of the word "Dominion". It illustrates the genius of Responsible Government in subverting British Imperialism, and is why I personally am not a republican (I'm not a monarchist either because I know the system will work whether we have a British Monarch or, say, an elected Governor General). Canada could have been called a Dominion, Commonwealth, Kingdom, Colony, Province, or Protectorate and it wouldn't have changed the way French Canadians felt about British Colonialism.

Silverchemist's points should be summarized in this article and referenced with quotes in the section under Canadian Confederation. There is a crucial gap in the article between 1867 and 1907 that needs to be filled. I don't have the book. Could someone provide some relevant quotes and page references, and optimally, a link to a scholarly review to his work? Are we talking about Crimean and Opium wars? I'll gladly take the time to format the references and quotes if someone is willing to provide them. Lets start by putting them here and asking to have them included in the article.

My problem with many editors here is not their monarchist views per se, but the fact that

* they do not provide specific references and quotes to back their claims

* they are unable to acknowledge when referenced sources here contradict their claims;

Silverchemist at least provides a reference and adds some meat to this discussion. --soulscanner (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And my/our problem with you is your flagrant misinterpretation of source matter and incessant disruption. You have yet to demonstrate the validity of your claims, and a majority as yet seems not to agree with your interpretation of the above quotes; as well, you have not provided additional clear ones as requested. It is ironic you continue to push your viewpoint down our collective throats, while demonstrating clear references for instance, which challenging or deprecating reliable source which clearly confirm notions you disagree with, like the legality of 'Dominion' as Canada's title. Enough. I'll refrain from commenting additionally until sense is exhibited and good faith is reciprocated. Quizimodo (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of personal attacks, why not tell me what your take is on any of the three quotes given above. How have a misinterpreted these? --soulscanner (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This section seems to serve little purpose. I may comment later. Quizimodo (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It lists the ways in which Canada remained subservient to Britain in 1867. That goes to the heart of the matter. --soulscanner (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly: this is a list which you've compiled, with no authority, and in furtherance of your disruption. I see in the section above that the majority of commentators have yet to agree with your interpretation, and so you have created an additional section to further your interests. Does this sound familiar? It should, because it is a repeat of your prior performance at the 'Canada' article. Quizimodo (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of taunts about who you think is winning, why not address what the quotes say:

a) They are not my quotes. They are Heard's. The authority is his, not mine.

b) Compiling a list of statements that contradict your claims is not disruptive to wikipedia. It is good faith discussion.

c) Why not respond with a list of powers that were transfered to Canada from Britain? Is it because none exist? The information certainly does not exist here. --soulscanner (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is an original pastiche from which one shouldn't expect to base an argument. Can you provide a clear quotation which corroborates the assertion? The selections above from Heard skirt around the issue, while not really addressing it. Why the over-reliance on Heard? Until you can provide one, and until you revamp your approach, there's little to discuss. Quizimodo (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One can't base arguments on quotes from historians? What do the quotes from Heard leave to the imagination? They are taken verbatim from his text. They are clear enough to me. Please give me your interpretation of them if you have trouble with mine. As for other quotes, we now have quotes from the BNA act that supports the simple statement in question. Solverchemist was good enough to find another source to back up his claims. That is good faith discussion. There is as yet no source identifying any autonomy transfered from Britain to Canada by Confederation. I'd be interested in seeing one. We now have three indicating otherwise. --soulscanner (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have a penchant for misrepresentation. The fundamental problem is that what is 'clear' to you may not be to others. As demonstrated above, myself and some others take exception to your interpretation of Heard, definitely of Forsey. I've also excerpted both, and the following from Heard contradicts other passages provided: "When the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 it was granted powers of self-government to deal with all internal matters, but Britain still retained overall legislative supremacy." Explain the contradiction. If you accept the accuracy of this statement, just as you accept other assertions from Heard, then it also means that assertions in the 'Canada' lead about Canada being formed into a 'federal semi-autonomous polity' or similar are correct. Quizimodo (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for specifying. Forsey explains it: the powers granted were those of Responsible Government transfered from the provinces. The provinces already had this limited self-government. This was not autonomy as Britain could quash any law or legal decision it wanted. This is confirmed by section 129 of the BNA act excerpted below. Do you have any evidence that Canada got more powers than what the provinces already had? --soulscanner (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There would be less occasion for ad hominem remarks if, as Soulscanner says, material was consistently cited. This is the major failing of the article. Quizimodo accuses 'flagrant misinterpretation'. It is certainly an interpretation, but how he can judge it is a misinterpretation I cannot tell. I for one don't read his quotes the way he does. This is the problem with relying too much on one text: it can be interpreted different ways.--Gazzster (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, most of the commentators to date apparently disagree with you. As well, your commentary is even more applicable to your ally in this: given editorial behaviours to date, entailing the flagrant dismissal of references already provided regarding other notions (e.g., multiple reliable references attesting to the official/legal nature of 'Dominion' as Canada's title) and other long-standing dickery, are you really surprised by the reaction? Quizimodo (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

'My ally?' Frankly you don't deserve a response.--Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the emptiness of your commentaries, we are not missing much. Quizimodo (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a consensus review on these topics? GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We're a little confused I think on what the topic are. Perhaps you couold list them as you see them, and we can discuss from there.--Gazzster (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read the British North America Act of 1867, rather than what others have said about it? It is available at [13]. It is the document which describes how the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were to be combined to form the Dominion of Canada. It goes into great detail about how the union is to be governed. Here are two salient items from the Act:

"129. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all Laws in force in Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick at the Union, and all Courts of Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction, and all legal Commissions, Powers, and Authorities, and all Officers, Judicial, Administrative, and Ministerial, existing therein at the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick respectively, as if the Union had not been made; subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as are enacted by or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), to be repealed, abolished, or altered by the Parliament of Canada, or by the Legislature of the respective Province, according to the Authority of the Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act."

"132. The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all Powers necessary or proper for performing the Obligations of Canada or of any Province thereof, as Part of the British Empire, towards Foreign Countries, arising under Treaties between the Empire and such Foreign Countries."

These sections seem quite clear. The laws existing at the time of Confederation would continue "as if the Union had not been made", with those Acts of the British Parliament excepted. Foreign affairs were to be determined by "the Empire". There don't seem to be any new powers granted to the new country in this Act. Any autonomy, particularly in relations with other other countries, was taken rather than granted, as I mentioned in a previous post. Silverchemist (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The particular selection from the Constitution Act, 1867, refers to the laws existing before Confederation. Further autonomy need not be granted by law to be granted none-the-less; as mentioned earlier, Canada's constitution lay within control of Westminster until 1982, though the parliament there would not alter it without explicit instruction from Canada, despite the point that Britain did to do so by law. --G2bambino (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point about autonomy being granted in other ways is true. But consider the following:

a) The BNA Act of 1867 is a law. It's the law that brought about Confederation. Did that law grant Canada new autonomy? That is the question here.

b) When did Canada first challenge this section of the constitution and defy laws laid out by the British Parliament or courts? When did Britain accept this challenge, and hence "grant" autonomy? You probably could not put a date on it, but the process started decades after Confederation. But the law itself did not grant Canada any autonomy the provinces didn't already have. --soulscanner (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are so insistent on citing the constitution in this respect, why is it that you have challenges with Canada's entitlement as a dominion in the very same document? This is but one reason why I will limit discourse with you. Quizimodo (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of changing the subject and indulging in insults, lets focus on the question. I'll rephrase it: Did the BNA act grant any new powers that the provinces did not have? If so, provide the references? --soulscanner (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The BNA Act established the Canadian federal government & four provincial governments; where's before there were British colonial governments. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to ask this question. It strikes to the core of this dispute. What about a federal government makes it more autonomous?--Gazzster (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Autonomous - self-governing, independant - On that definition, the Canadian government didn't become autonomous until after 1931 (see more below). GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

True. And it did not become completely independent until 1982. Other former dominions, like Australia and New Zealand have parrallel, if distinct, histories of independence. So to get back to what I think was the original proposition, i.e., Canada was an archetypical dominion - can we say that?--Gazzster (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't done until Canada would act in defiance of the laws spelled out in , and when Britain did not have the power or will to enforce them. this was way after 1867. By which non-legal action did Britain grant more autonomy to Canada in 1867? Britain My point is that it isn't Confederation that granted this autonomy. Confederation refers to the union of colonies by the BNA Act in 1867; it is a legal act, and this Act granted no new powers. This was long after Confederation. If Canada exercised autonomy (and it would a few decades later), it was in defiance of these sections of the Constitution Act. If you do not like that wording, we can say that the Constitution Act of 1867 did not grant any new autonomy to Canada. If autonomy was "granted" by Britain, it was later than 1867 Autonomy was not granted; it was taken. --soulscanner (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The same is true for Australia. The Commonwealth government was given no special powers that made it any more autonomous than the states were already. The independence of the former colonies of Britain was a gradual process.--Gazzster (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I had to go to a library and scour the net for the sources I found. And all we had to do is go to the BNA act. Thanks for the search. It seems to back up the text that is being disputed:

"Neither Confederation nor the adoption of the Dominion title, however, did not grant granted extra autonomy to the new federal level of government"

Or am I reading you wrong? --soulscanner (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are reading correctly Silverchemist (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm so used to asking for clarification on circular arguments that I'm no longer sure of even straightforward statements. --soulscanner (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Autonomous: Think of Canada this way - Before 1867, a child being cared for by its parent (the UK). 1867-1931, a teenager who's has his own house, but that house is on his parents property & they're paying the bills. 1931-1982, young adult buys section of parents property, pays his own bills, maitains relations with parents. 1982-present, older adult completely independant.GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And thank God someone moved the discussion!--Gazzster (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analogy! There is even a bit of teenage rebelliousness when asked to do some chores (sending troops to support Imperial causes).Silverchemist (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it was indeed a gradual process to adulthood (i.e Canada's independances). GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another analogy - before 1867, three colonies each had a nanny chosen by the queen. In 1867, the queen chose a supernanny to oversee all the other nannies (and one colony was split and also got its own new nanny)--JimWae (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation submitted

A request for mediation has been made here. We need to stop going around in circles. Someone please second the motion. --soulscanner (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion. Whatever gets the traffic going. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ... I missed the details ... you need to go to the mediation request page to second it. Thanks--soulscanner (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, why don't we broaden the scope of this mediation? I've had a look at this hotchpotch we call an article. It appears amazingly confused and without direction. And there is way too much evidence on Canada and the idea that Canada is some kind of model dominion. Let's put our cards on the table. Let's all be brutally honest. What the hell is wrong with this strange mishmash of statements?--Gazzster (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I've pratically no clue what the dispute is on Canada & Dominion. My main concern is article stability. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too. There's no stability without some sense of cohesion. There's no stability without good referencing and stating facts instead of assumptions. The article lacks all these things.--Gazzster (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree?

So can we agree that there was nothing about federation in 1867 that made Canada more autonomous than its constituent colonies had been, or other self-governing colonies?--Gazzster (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we ask for protection to be lifted?--Gazzster (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If opposing parties promise to not edit war (and to work things out on the discussion page)? Then protection should be lifted. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Silverchemist (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. How do we go about unlocking? Do we ask the admin who locked it, or can we go to anyone?--Gazzster (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask the locking Administrator to unlock & to impose a 1RR rule on the warring editors in question (a 1RR would discourage the warriors from reverting each other). GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)\

Good idea. Who was the locking Admin?--Gazzster (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The last person to edit this article - Administrator Stifle. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevern mind. Found him.--Gazzster (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:Stifle. And I've asked for a 1RR rule.--Gazzster (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't enforce a 1RR on you, but if an edit war restarts I'll be back to protect the page again. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Stifle.--Gazzster (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The last exchange was so long and heated, and don't remember what started it. Was it that important?--Gazzster (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars usually add heat to the discussion page, as it causes warring editors to loose their cool (venting their frustrations at discussion). GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the requested references, but left the reference request tag on. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether these constitute sufficient references. My mistake before was to remove the request tag myself; that was jumping the gun on my part. --soulscanner (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-governing colonies

There is a distinction which is being overlooked in the above discussion: the Canadian colonies did not go from being ordinary Crown Colonies (under direct British rule) to being a Dominion in 1867; they went from being self-governing colonies to being a Dominion. Most Crown Colonies did not have the powers of a Dominion. Self-governing colonies did.

As an aside, this distinction is probably clearer in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, because of the long periods in which they were self-governing colonies, before they became Dominions. In Canada the gap was a lot shorter. Grant 05:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is being overlooked. My understanding is that the distinction between Crown colonies and self-governing colonies were that the self-governing ones had responsible government. Nova Scotia, Canada, and New Brunswick all had Responsible government since the 1840's, and were self-governing as far as I understand the word (I understand the same holds for Australian colonies). This means, as Forsey and the relevant sections of the BNA act state, that Confederation changed nothing in this regard, as the federal government assumed powers the constituent colonies already had. I may be wrong about the word "self-governing" though. I know that the Dominion of Newfoundland reverted to Crown colony status when it lost Responsible Government, so I'm basing my nomenclature on that.

As I understand it, though, having responsible government did not make colonies dominions. A Dominion could have a say in the running of the Empire and have a final say in some legislation. That would be semi-autonomous, in my view. Britain had the final say in everything under responsible government. The colonies had no say in how the Empire was run, and Britain could disallow any colonial law it wished. According to constitutional scholar Frank Scott (see article), this only changed in 1917, when the "Dominions" were given places at the Imperial War Council, and in 1919, when they signed the Treaty of Versailles. I'll grant you that is only one learned opinion, but I hve yet to find others. --soulscanner (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If a Domininon is 'semi-independant' (which Canada was in the 19th century IMHO), its usage could be applied. Also, Canada was declared a Dominion (at least in name) upon Confederation. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Heard disagrees with your opinion, as does the BNA Act. Dominion in 1867 meant "overseas possession of the British Monarch". It was put there to uphold it as a possession of the Monarch. It did not come to mean "semi-independent" until much later. Please read the Frank Scott's reference in the Article "The End of Dominion Status" [14]. He said it began meaning "semi-independent" in 1917 or 1919. I realize it is but one opinion, but it is the opinion of an important Canadian legal scholar. --soulscanner (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If I could offer a suggestion, perhaps we could avoid terms like 'semi-independent', 'semi-autonomous', 'autonomous', etc. They are the occasion of a lot of contention. I've nothing against contention, if it can lead to truth. But, as TharkunColl would say, British colonial arrangements are ambiguous at best. We can't assign specific dates to demonstrate when such and such a country acheived a particular constitutional status. It was an incremental process, for Canada and all the dominions. It is far safer simply to say, dominions were so declared in 1907; then explain the context of the 1907 decision for each of the dominions.

Secondly, the 1867 dominion status for Canada and the 1907 dominion status for Canada, NZ, Aust, S.Africa, Newfoundland are two different issues. Is the concept of dominion in 1867 for Canada the same as that of dominion in 1907? I would say no, and this article should only deal with the 1907 concept. There are enough articles, such as Name of Canada, Canada, and History of Canada which deal with the specifically Canadian idea of dominion.--Gazzster (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally. I have no trouble with the 1907 date. I use the 1917 and 1919 dates because we have a specific scholarly reference that supports these years as the start of dominion status,and that technically trumps our opinions. However, in terms of autonomy status, these dominions likely had no more colonies with Responsible Government in 1907 than in the 1800's. The differnces is that in 1907 they started wanting to. --soulscanner (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1867 the term dominion was used to name the federation. I don't want to get into that issue: I believe it's a red herring. I also believe it's incorrect to suggest, as has been suggested, that Canada was an archetype of the Imperial Dominion.But if users wish to pursue that line of thought, they must offer solid arguments and references. As it stands, I think the article is too Canadiocentric (if I can incvent a word).--Gazzster (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Canadiocentric, do you think we can move the last sentence of the lead to the section on Canada? The lead should stick to referring to countries collectively, and not focus on one above the others. It's unCanadian to hog space :-) --soulscanner (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you fellas (to decide what's what). Quite a bit of this topic is above my head. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's Get Busy

I think we need to even this article out a bit. I'm sure Canada's a great country, but there were more dominions than Canada!--Gazzster (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever gets the traffic moving. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a major flaw in the article? Most of the African colonies were given rushed Dominion status on their way to independence in the 60's, were they not? --MichiganCharms (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Post 1948 Dominions

I rearranged the intro, as it failed to differentiate between Dominion status pre 1948 and dominion status (note the capitalization change) post 1948, which was a title equivalent to Commonwealth Realm. Changes in British sovereignty is a good article to consult for the post 1948 definition. -MichiganCharms (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting concept Michigan Charms --- was there an official change to the 1926 Balfour definition of ' Dominion status ' and if so could you give me a link to it please . thanks Lejon61.68.7.154 (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing order of sections

I think adding an alphabetically sorted section for the Dominions is a good idea. However, I think it shouldn't break up the historical development section. A good narrative here will lead us to an answer for years to choose for the start of dominion status. I think we should keep this goal in mind. The beginning of the status is now unacceptably unclear. --soulscanner (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)-

Sorry, wasn't being rude: I hadn't noticed the post. No, I'm not going to touch Historical Development until the article starts to make some kind of sense. I'm sort of feeling my way. I felt a listing of dominions should be made first. And I will certainly come to the talk page before major rewrites. What other names do I need to add to the list? Were the former African colonies dominions, or did they go straight to independent republics?--Gazzster (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The African colonies were referred to as dominions pre-1907, as were all colonies. As the other meanings of the word started becoming predominant and especially when "dominion status" became recognized in 1926 and 1931, I think this stopped. That's why I think it might be a good idea to first explain how the usage of the word changed over time and to first decide on which usage should predominate here. Otherwise, there's no criteria for making the list. --soulscanner (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of "Dominion" usage in Empire/Commonwealth

It seems there's a lot of confusion here based on the changing usage of the word Dominion within the British Empire and Commonwealth. Here's a list documenting the usage, as I see it. I'd be interested in comments, and especially more references documenting the different usages.

1. pre -1907: colony; possession of Britain(1653;1713; 1867; 1911)
2. 1907-1919: colony with responsible government; self-governing colony[15][16]
3. 1919-1948: "Dominion status"; neither colony nor independent country, with some say in foreign affairs [17]
4. post 1948: independent country using British monarch as symbolic head of state

Let's treat this topic as seperate from Canada's name for now. --soulscanner (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• We do agree of course, that Canada's original name was Dominion of Canada.

GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. The federal government gave it that title for a time, but the wording Dominion of Canada never appeared in the BNA act. The wording was "a Dominion under the Name of Canada". That can be read as "a Colony named Canada", if you're so inclined. This has all been settled on the Canada page years ago, and explained in Canada#Etymology. I think if we were doing to discuss that issue, we should do so at Canada's name. Here we are focusing on the use of "dominion" as a descriptive term (i.e. what is meant by the word "dominion"). Specifically, we are concerned with how much autonomy the word implies at different points in history. I think this is the more pressing issue right now. --soulscanner (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada completely ceased to be a Dominon in 1982 (arguably 1931) IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the post 1948 definition of "dominion" employed by the Commonwealth and the Monarchy, Canada is still a dominion as far as these organisations are concerned. However, this is not the same type of dominion as 1867. The definition has changed since then. --soulscanner (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• My thoughts:

1. pre 1907 - the word is so vague as to be meaningless, and not worth analysing
2. Treaty of Versailles 1919 - no special status was really acquired. Sure, they had some say at the table, but their constitutuional status did not change. In the case of Australia, for example, they still did not have an independent diplomatic voice until WW2. But by all means, it's worthy of note.
3. After 1948 - The term was already obsolete.

To my mind, the key dates are

1. 1907 (the Imperial Conference)
2. 1926 (Balfour Declaration)
3. 1931 (Statute of Westminster)
4. 1952 (Royal Styles and Titles Act)

--Gazzster (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Two main points here.

1. It would be a good idea to focus on the scholarly analysis of reputable sources rather than stating personal opinions. If you examine the sources, the pre-1907 meaning of the word was actually quite clear. It meant colony of Britain where Britain had the final say in everything. It actually became more vague after 1907.
2. Secondly, the importance of the Treaty of Versailles is advocated by the scholarly source, not myself. That makes it more important than any editor's opinion (yours or mine). Scott argues that having the dominions sign an international Peace Treaty and joining the League of Nations gave them a status that colonies just don't have. The 1926 and 1931 statutes are also important, but they are more of a recognition of existing powers that Canada and the other dominions had already taken on their own initiatives. Scott advocates the position that autonomy is not granted, but taken. That is why the U.S., for example, celebrates the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776 rather than the British recognition of it in the Treaty of Versailles, 1783.
3. The 1952 date is new to me. I think something happened in 1948 too, but I'm not sure what it is.

--soulscanner (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• The word was used often, but it was still pretty vague. In its broadest terms it meant any territory; it was used to denote particular territories such as the American colonies; it was used for Canada. I think the article would waste space analysing all the usages. I think it should confine itself to the meaning it was given in 1907. For other usages, we need to create a disambiguation page.
• Sure, it is important to mention Versailles in the context of the evolution of the dominions.I acknowledge that. The dominions created the need for Westminster, sure (although the British were keen to devolve the Empire anyway). But Westminster did not acknowledge existing powers; it actually gave it to them.
• 1952 was the Royal Styles and Titles Act which removed the word 'Dominions' from the title of the British sovereign and replaced it with 'Realms'. The British government had not used the term dominion since 1948.--Gazzster (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. There is already a disambiguation page. Begging your pardon.--Gazzster (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think. This page should not be about the pre 1907 use of the word, but I think the fact itself bears mention (it already appears here). Given that some are applying the post 1907 definition to 1867, I think it's important to document usage before 1907 in a few short sentences. I didn't mean to say that more should be written on this. If you're going to document when the new usage appears, you need to aware of the old usage. Hope that clarifies. --soulscanner (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is there anyone or any organization that still does use the word dominion? --soulscanner (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. I'm not aware of any organisation that still uses the word dominion. --Gazzster (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on ! there are plenty! See Dominion, Dominion, and many more.--Gregalton (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected!--Gazzster (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are non-commercial uses as well, e.g. Dominion of Canada Rifle Association. [18] Silverchemist (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, but I don't think that's quite what Soulscanner had in mind!--Gazzster (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you clarified, I can't seem to find the constitutional cases related to Dominion Meat Packers ;)--Gregalton (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association web site [19] before dismissing its relevance. "The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association was founded in 1868 and incorporated by an Act of Parliament 63-64" Silverchemist (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoo boy. I guess I walked right into that one. I think I meant organizations that refer to Canada as a dominion in the descriptive and legal sense, not use dominion as part of their company name. There's a lot of companies that have Empire and Empress in their name too, but that doesn't mean Canada is still part of one. Toronto Dominion Bank is no more part of a dominion than The Imperial Bank of Commerce is part of the British Empire. I appreciate the humor, though. It's a refreshing change. --soulscanner (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're implying about the relevance of this to his question. Department of Justice lists all the various organisations in the "Table of Private Acts" (incorporations). Seeing that others with title of Dominion include the "Dominion Salvage and Wrecking Company", "Dominion Drainage Company", and "Elks, Grand Lodge of the Benevolent and Protective Order of, of the Dominion of Canada", it does not seem to support much more than what has already been established: that the phrase "Dominion of Canada" was frequently used in Canada for a while. I haven't looked to see what the most recent of these is, but they do not appear to be recent for the most part.

The history, of course, is that many companies, particularly banks and others, had to be incorporated by the government. Perhaps a lawyer could tell us more and this is a bit obscure, but I fail to see the relevance beyond what the existence of a company named Dominion Meat Packers shows us.--Gregalton (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but a little levity doesn't hurt. I had in mind whether the Commonwealth still refers to Realms as Dominions. --soulscanner (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dominion or republic?

The article says "The Irish Free State was a dominion between 1921 and 1948, when the Republic of Ireland Act was passed. In 1925 Northern Ireland opted to separate and join the United Kingdom. [27] It was the only dominion which was a republic."

What does the last sentence mean? ("It was the only dominion which was a republic")

It seems to me it would be better deleted.

Tim2718281 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right of course. It makes no sense.--Gazzster (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's correct. It was a dominion under the British crown but it had a republican governing structure that included the office of president. Kevlar67 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Free State/Ireland - a Separate Realm?

The current Monarchy in Ireland article states: "It was five years before the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 revived the title King of Ireland as a separate position to the British crown"

Was the King acting on the authority of the Irish Free State (later Ireland) government acting in "a separate position to the British crown"? To my knowledge there was no Act of the Oireachtas declaring the King, "King of Ireland". - On my, admittedly unresearched reading, the 1927 Act merely restyled the UK monarch's title and in no way created "a separate position" for the Free State. On my reading separate monarchs for each Realm was a later development (1950s) although the restyling of the UK monarch's title was a precursor. Am I wrong on this? Does any one have any legal knowledge on this matter?

On very much a realted point, the Commonwealth realm article describes Irish Free State/ Ireland as a commonwealth realm. Ireland severed all links with the monarchy in 1949. Similarly to the above, on my reading up to 1949 Ireland's status, strictly speaking, never exceeded that of a Dominion. Am I right or wrong on this. If it was never a Commonwealth Realm, some changes will flow from this. Considered views would be welcome. Thanks.Redking7 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution of the Irish Free State says that all governmental power came from the peopler, including (presumably) that of the King. The Constitution does not name George King of Ireland. He is simply called, 'the King'.--Gazzster (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okkie dookie ... here we go,

(pre-1170), ... whatever,

(1170-1541), the Lordship of Ireland, ("Lord of Ireland"),

(1541-1800), the Kingdom of Ireland, ("King of Ireland"),

(1801-1921), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, ("King of Great Britain and Ireland"),

After Dec. 6., 1921,

Northern part of the Island of Ireland (i.e., the "6 Counties"),

(1921-1927), the Province of Northern Ireland ("Governor-General of Northern Ireland")

in Union with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,

(post-1927), the Province of Northern Ireland ("Governor-General of Northern Ireland"),

in Union with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Southern part of the Island of Ireland (i.e., the "26 Counties"),

(1921-1937), the Irish Free State, status ... a Dominion, ("Governor-General of the Irish Free State"),

(1937-1949), Eire, status ... a legal void, (nominal "President"),

(post-1949), Ireland, status ... a Republic, ("President of Ireland").

Note: In a dishonest legal "hair-splitting" exercise, the Republic of Ireland is an offical description, not a bona-fide offical name (i.e., long-form name). The name change to the Republic of Ireland requires a Referendum.

Oi. Oi. Aren't the Republican-Irish a real pain in the ass.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk)

So the official name (long form name) can be different from the "description" (title)? Ireland has no long-form name? Or the long-form name is the same as the short-form name? How can that be?--Gregalton (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

auto-archiving - being bold

I'm going to put an auto-archiver and archive box on this page. I'll set it with archiving only discussions more than 200 days old for now, and we'll see how it goes from there. Objections welcome, of course.--Gregalton (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Difference between dominion status and title

• Irish free State and South Africa never had dominion title; they had dominion status, meaning autonomy in the Brtish Empire;
• Etymology was needed to establish eolution of the words usage; before 1907, dominion referred to any overseas possession of the monarch;
• Also, difference between Dominion title (Virginia, New England, Canada in 1867) and Dominion status ( Australia 1907, South Africa 1910, Ireland 1922) needs to me made. They are not the same. Canada got a Dominion title in 1867, not Dominion status. This article is about Dominion status.--soulscanner (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between dominion status and title is indeed an important one to make clear, and I'm not sure the article currently does this sufficiently. In geo-political terms, any dominion is an area under a supreme authority; that means any kingdom could be seen as a particular king's dominion. However, in the British Empire/Commonwealth context, the term took on added meaning(s), such as for Canada in 1867, and the wider Empire in 1907. The article is not specifically about "dominion status," and the differences and evolutions need to be carefully spelled out. --G2bambino (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence to indicate that the title conferred any autonomy to Canada that the constituent colonies had. You'll need a reference here. No autonomy was implied until 1907, and even then it was only implied. It was not clarified until the Balfour declaration. --soulscanner (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't even know what you're talking about. Are you clear on what you think the issues with the article are? --G2bambino (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To sumarize, Canada in 1867 was not a dominion in the sense of the word between 1907 and 1948. It was a dominion in the sense of Virginia in the 17th century and Tongaland in 1895. --soulscanner (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't be focusing so specifically on Canada right now; instead, how about laying out the different meanings of the term dominion that should be covered in this article? --G2bambino (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They should all be covered in the etymology section, which is there to document the evolution of a words usage. The rest of the article, as per longstanding consensus should focus on the "Dominions", the semi-independent states between 1907 and 1948 (some scholars say 1919 to 1948) that gained some autonomy within the Empire/Commonwealth, but not complete independence. The evolution of the usage is well summarized in the etymology section. It clears up possible confusion about the colonial status of Virginia in the 17th century, Canada in 1867, and Tongaland in 1896. It also clears up confusion between dominion status and the title of Dominion. It also clears up possible confusion with the post 1948 definition, which is also necessary. --soulscanner (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They should all be covered by the article in general; the evolution is more than simply word usage - there are points in time where the word could mean three separate things, depending on context, and there's no grounds to your arbirtrary limitations on eras covered. As the article stands, the lead is poorly composed (narrow, disjointed), the etymology section is similarly poor (conflicting, unsourced, and weasely), and the rest... well, I guess I shouldn't get ahead of myself.

Now, by my reading of things there are three types of dominions to focus on here: 1) any possession of the sovereign throughout the history of the Empire and Commonwealth, 2) the geo-political entity of Canada 1867-1960 (?), and 3) the autonomous, non-UK states of the Empire/Commonwealth from 1907-1948. Can we agree on that? --G2bambino (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are only two that concern me: 1) any possession of the sovereign throughout the history of the Empire (When you talked of a dominion in the 1920's, you were talking about a semi-autonomous colony). 2) PARTIALLY autonomous, non-UK states of the Empire/Commonwealth from 1907-1948 (Dominion status). Canada was both. The first definition gave way gradually in the early 1900's. In current usage, it can mean both, depending on the historical context.--soulscanner (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Which concern you and which don't are of little importance; the third is just as valid as the others. It seems, however, that this discussion and the one below are merging, so I'll continue down there. --G2bambino (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

[Moving here from User talk:G2bambino --G2]]

You have removed a cited reference from the Dominion page. Please restore it. --soulscanner (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe I did. Perhaps you could be more clear? --G2bambino (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you didn't bother to expand on your contentions, and instead simply went an made a blunt revert. Your dispute is still incomprehensible. --G2bambino (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I restored the deleted referenced passage. It says that before 1907, dominion was used to refer to colonial overseas possessions of the British Monarch. The fact that you restored the reference (but not the passage) indicates that you were well aware of it. Please be more careful in the future. --soulscanner (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I restored the reference because it supports the statement "A dominion... was an autonomous colony in the British Empire." There's no difference between saying that and "Before 1907, the term would refer to any overseas possession of the British Empire." As the sentences say the same thing, why is your version supposedly superior? --G2bambino (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So you recognize that Dominion before 1907 referred to any colony of the Empire? You had removed both 1907 references (see [20]]). --soulscanner (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes; before and after 1907. So the date is misplaced in that particular sentence. --G2bambino (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So only after 1907 did dominion begin to imply the semi-autonomous or self-governing status (i.e. dominion status) that is the topic of the article, right? That's the main point. --soulscanner (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(i.e. Before 1907, there was one usage; after 1907, there were two)--soulscanner (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it did, but that didn't render the other definitions defunct. Between 1907 and 1931 there appeared to be three concurrent uses for the word: A) Canada, B) any possession of the sovereign, and C) a semi-autonomous colony of the Empire. From 1931 to 1950 there seemed to be four different types: the previous plus a sovereign Commonwealth country in personal union with the UK.

I now see your version speaks of B), whereas mine relates to C). That's fine, but the use of the word in the context of B) didn't cease in 1907; even today any possession of EIIR could be termed as her dominion. --G2bambino (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

* The point about definition B (i.e. a British colony) is well taken. The usage continued, but by the time you talked of the "Dominions" in the Balfour Declaration (1926), definition B (i.e. semi-autonomus colony) was dominant. Tongaland was not one of the Dominions as it was in 1896.

* Definition C (i.e. self-governing colony) is the topic of this article. It was only implied in 1907, but gradually came to take on this definition through implication.

* Definition B (i.e. colonial possession of Queen Victoria) applied to Canada in 1867. It was called a dominion to affirm that it remained a colony in the British Empire. After 1907, Dominion gradually took on its later meaning for Canada.

* Using it in current usage is ambiguous, since the term ceased to mean anything (legally) after 1948. Historically, it can refer to either definition. If you call Canada a dominion, it is unclear whether you mean a colonial possession or a self-governing state. --soulscanner (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

* I like the word polity. It's not an easily understood word though. I may try wikifying it. --soulscanner (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get into dominant usages - at least, not yet. For now just the scope of the article is important. That said, your diktat that the page is only about C) seems arbitrary; there is a larger and longer history of the use of the term dominion in the British Empire/Commonwealth, and there seems no logic to cutting all that down to a period of a few decades.

As for Canada (i.e. point A), I mean neither. In 1867 Canada was dubbed a Dominion - as a title. That is all, really. --G2bambino (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed section about Dominion Resources

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

Meaning of dominion before 1907

The source says:

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

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

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

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

Thus

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

is less misleading regarding autonomy than

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

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

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

More likely than not, perhaps the distinction/clause is made because this article is from a Canadian encyclopedia, and therefore highlights the topic of note. Otherwise, I find nothing in your argument that is more or less compelling than beforehand, which defers to one interpretation of the reference as much (even more so, since you maintain it despite) as others. Even the reference from Heard indicates: "When the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 it was granted powers of self-government to deal with all internal matters..." while pointing out overall subservience to Britain. Also, if you wish to contend that Canada was never one of the empire's self-governing members, then of course you will have to demonstrate that. Good luck. As well, one other author in the least made this same edit, [21] so arguably it isn't a solitary interpretation of the reference. Thus, the current introduction shall stand until you can demonstrate otherwise. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Virginia - Old Dominion

shouldn't Virginia be on here? it was declared a dominion by Charles II, long before the page says the term came into usage in relation with Canada.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.129.166 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Newfoundland date

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

India and "responsible government"

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

Head Of Indian State

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

The article is addressing India's status prior to the adoption of said constitution in 1950. --MichiganCharms (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Map

While I appreciate the attempt to add some color to the article, the map in the lead doesn't accurately portray the Dominions, it merely shows the Crown's dominions. I hesitate to remove it without other input, so I'm putting this here -- MichiganCharms (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right! It's a map of Victoria's empire. It's the dominions with a little d as opposed to the Dominions with a big D.Well spotted!--Gazzster (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote for keeping it there. The map is a historical artifact that demonstrates what the word "Dominions" conveyed at a point in history. What is your authority for suggesting otherwise? What is inaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al139 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the map shows every British possession in red. The "Dominions" being addressed in this article are a very specific legal concept, distinct from the word "dominion". It show's Victoria's dominions, of which the Dominion of Canada is the subject of this article. --- MichiganCharms (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead says: "This article is about the Dominions of the British Empire and of the Commonwealth of Nations." If the article was limited to "Balfour Declaration Dominions", I'd vote to take the map down. But the "very specific legal concept" of "Dominion" was a in fact a very brief borderline honorific and shouldn't negate evidence of how the word was used in the British Empire for the hundreds of years prior to the Balfour Declaration. Al139 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

But the article is precisely about that specific, albeit brief meaning of 'Dominion:A dominion, often Dominion,[1] refers to one of a group of semi-autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty, constituting the British Empire and British Commonwealth, from the late 19th century.[2] They have included (at varying times) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State. After 1948, the term was used to denote independent nations that retained the British monarch as head of state; these included Pakistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Kenya and Canada. The caption to the map says that the marked areas are 'The' Dominions, meaning those countries indicated in the leading paragraph. I agree it's an interesting map. But it belongs better to British Empire perhaps.The meaning as 'used in the British Empire for the hundreds of years prior to the Balfour Declaration' refers to a disambiguation. And disambiguations are referred to in the italic lead.Gazzster (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As Gazzster correctly notes, the article is about the "Balfour Declaration Dominions". Perhaps the map, which I agree is interesting, could be moved to the "Definition" section which discusses the more historical use of the phrase? I feel like having it in the lead is slightly misleading. I'd also change the caption. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Dominions

Why is Malta listed as a "Dominion" as in only achieved independence in 1964, so belongs to the later period where there is so much debate about "Commonwealth Realms"?

Also with regard to Newfoundland, I understand that it was entitled to the title Dominion from the 1907 Colonial Conference, but did not officially adopt the title until 1917 Colonial Conference. The 1907 Conference described the members as "Dominions" instead of colonies. New Zealand adopted the title later that year (by Royal Decree) as listed, but there is nothing to show that Newfoundland made such a change. Interestingly the 1907 conference also included all four South African provinces, so that within 5 years of the end of the Boer War, the two Boer states of Transvaal and the Orange Free State were treated by the British government as "Dominions". However the South African provinces never assumed such separate status prior to the Union of South Africa 1910. 09:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Use of term 'Dominion' earlier in English history

The act integrating Wales into England in 1543 refers to the Dominion of Wales and His Majesty's other dominions - see a quote in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1535_and_1542#The_Acts_and_the_Welsh_language

and the term continued to be used until 1800 according this claim in Parliament

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1934/nov/05/wales-title-of-dominion

so there's more history here than the article currently reflects. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Dominion of New England was established in an attempt to take away power form the New England Commonwealth colonies. Such as The Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Massachusetts still retains the name Commonwealth of Massachusetts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:78CB:A300:6DC0:FB21:BD13:889C (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Colonial Conference of 1907

"The assertiveness of the self-governing colonies was recognised in the Colonial Conference of 1907, which implicitly introduced the idea of the Dominion as a self-governing colony by referring to Canada and Australia as Dominions."

If they were already self-governing colonies, then the idea of the Dominion must have implicitly introduced them as being something more than that. Any thoughts? Chocoholic2017 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Confused Canadian

The first sentence of the article reads "The word Dominion was used from 1907 to 1948 to refer to one of several self-governing nations of the British Empire". I was born in Canada in the year 1952 and "recall" the sentence "Dominion of Canada" being on Canadian paper currency right up to 1982 so "1907 to 1948" just quoted might be inaccurate. Prior to 1982, every cinema event began with the both songs "God Save the Queen" and "Oh Canada". Cinemas stopped playing national songs after 1982 but you rarely heard "God Save the Queen". Canada swore in a new Governor General (supposedly just a figure-head for the Queen's representative) in 2021 with the whole thing carried on CBC radio. I was surprised/shocked when the new GG had to swear allegiance to the Queen. Neilrieck (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Canadian Landscape...Scenes of Canada--Moxy- 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)