Talk:Canada/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archives
2003–2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 2006 7 8 9 10 2007 11 12 13 14 15 2008 16 17 18 2009 19 2010 20 2011 21 2012 22 2013 23 2015–present 24 25 26 27 Discussion of Canada's official name Canada's name Official Name 1 Future TFA paragraph Main Page

Pictures under demographics section

There are too many charts here. They are appropriate in the demographics article, but I think in an introductory article one will suffice:

• Keep chart on ethnic groups; I think in some ways it can be considered to include info found in the other charts;
• Remove chart on Visible minorities (visibe minority itself has become a controversial term, and could distract from the neutral intent of the article)
• Remove chart on religions

I agree with suggestions that a picture of the Toronto skyline is needed; Toronto is Canada's largest city, and the section does list Canada's major urban centres; and just so the inevitable accusation of "Center of the Universe" boosterism, I'm from Montreal: it pains me to no end to make this suggestion :-) .

• Add classic picture of Toronto skyline from Lake Ontario. Caption: Toronto is Canada's largest metropolitain area with a population of 5,111,222 --Soulscanner 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Update Please update Canada's GDP by this link http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ15.htm Yyarin 19:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reference Please reference Canada's GDP with this link (Stats Canada) http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ15.htm Yyarin 19:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Show a population density map?

Canada's population is clustered in four areas: Victoria/Vancouver along the Pacific, the Calgary-Edmonton-Winnipeg triangle in the prairies, the Toronto-Quebec City corridor along the lower Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, and the Maritimes from Gaspe southeast to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.

Even along the international border, the islands of population are separated by many hundreds of kilometers of near-wilderness traversed by railroads and a few highways, but with only scattered small towns along the way.

Canada has a strange vestigal quality. If the United States reflects the strength of Republican and anti-merchantilist sentiment in North American during the 18th century, Canada reflects the limits of those sentiments and the ability of the British to persist in redoubts beyond the Great Lakes, along the Saint Lawrence, and on the Atlantic Coast nearest the home islands, particularly because the British had remained he world's preeminent naval power since the defeat of the Spanish Armada. 76.80.9.100 10:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures elsewhere

The user who just had his contribution reverted as, well, gunk, is correct, there needs to be some more images (or at least one more) of the natural beauty of Canada. It would appear that the only "natural" picture of Canada in the whole article is of Niagara Falls, and everyone has to agree that to represent the hugely diverse beauty of this country with a single "monument" like the Falls is, well, just not acceptable. An image of the Rockies or the Prairies is probably in order. In fact, if there is any possible way to get an image of a flowing wheat field with the Rockies in the distance, that, I think, would be an absolutely fantastic image to show the diversity of terrain in Canada. Lexicon (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Inuktitut

Most of the time when an alternative language is used beside the title of an article, that is because the original name came from a different language, and the original script is being shown. (For example Qur'an) I don't believe that the word Canada came from the original Inuktitut, and thus I believe the placement of the Inuktitut spelling of the word is not germane at the beginning of the article. What do others think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Canada should definitely appear in the title in English and French only - so there's no need here. Official (de jure or de facto) + English is all you need. WilyD 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslim explorers

Jagged 85 has added a statement on Muslim editors explorers reaching the Americas. This item is undue weight in this article, especially since it is a summary style article and that the reference is to the Americas and not Canada specifically. I had reverted it once, but he's reverted it back. Not wanting to get into a revert way I am bringing the discussion here. What do other think? Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, I agree, but what do Muslim editors have to do with the early exploration of America??? Sorry, just had to.--Ramdrake 22:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, my mistake. Fixed above. Sorry. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also reverted it, and it was un-reverted. I agree that this section, as it now stands, should not be in this article. The mention that Muslims explorers may have explored the Americas, and this may have included lands that are now part of Canada, would belong in an article about the exploration of Canada. However, for this to be included in this brief summary-style article about Canada, including only briefer sections on history and geography, I think there need to be three changes:

• 1. We need better sources. This should be more than just speculation and maybes. I'm not saying we need to have 100% certainty, but I think this should be a more reputable theory in the field of history. (Note: I am not a historian, but my impression from the references in this article is that it might be a fringe hypothesis.)
• 2. This needs to be relevant to Canada. As it stands now, the statement about Muslim explorers in the Americas is no more relevant than the claim that the Chinese explorered Central America in AD 1421.
• 3. We need more specific information. Like specifically who (what person or what group) explorered where in Canada, and when.

That's my opinion. Maybe we can get the statement in question to meet these criteria. Or maybe, if my impression of point #1 is correct, we can't. --thirty-seven 04:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few publications and scholarly articles suggesting that medieval Arabic sources did report about explorers from Spain and Africa travelling westwards to lands beyond the Atlantic. I am also aware of the 1421 hypothesis regarding Zheng He reaching the Americas. To me, these claims don't seem any less credible than the Viking claim (which hasn't actually been referenced in this article). However, I agree that some of these claims aren't specific about where in the Americas they travelled, so perhaps they might not belong to an article specifically about Canada. However, I have seen a few claims about African explorers reaching Canada (such as Leo Wiener's Africa and the Discovery of America), which might deserve at least a passing mention in this article. The Viking claims will also need to be sourced. Jagged 85 03:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. For all we know they could have reached Cape Horn in southern Chile, which means little to Canada. So unless the sources are specific as to how the Muslim explorers are relevant to the history of Canada, the passage doesn't belong here anymore than a Christopher Columbus mention, which hasn't been done. The claim is already at, and better suited for, the History of the Americas article. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

these claims don't seem any less credible than the Viking claim? Please see L'Anse aux Meadows for physical proof that the Vikings landed in what is now Canada. As the 1421 hypothesis article says, "The 1421 hypothesis has proven popular with the general public, but has been dismissed by Sinologists and professional historians." The same, I'm, certain, can be said about the Muslim claims. Until near-incontrovertible proof is provided, and accepted by historical academia at large, such claims should not be included in the article. Period. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. Lexicon (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Secular Canada?

Is Canada a secular state? At article secular state, it does not seem so. Might the article be wrong? __earth ^(Talk) 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Head of State of Canada is also the Head of the Anglican Church - it's not crazy to suggest it's not a secular state. WilyD 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The same is true for Australia but it's secular instead. Is it mentioned in the Canadian constitution? __earth ^(Talk) 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Although people might believe that Canada is a secular state, there is no official policy. In fact Canada's constitution begins with "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" --Nat.tang 22:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. thanks. __earth ^(Talk) 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While the Queen is nominal head of the Anglican Church, I don't think that that, alone, is enough to preclude Canada from being a secular state. It certainly does not make Anglicanism the state religion of Canada. Section 2 of the Charter confirms complete freedom of religion in Canada, and should be enough to consider it secular. Lexicon (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dejure, canada is anglican, though in reality, its one of the most secular states on earth.~sdhonda

The Anglican church has no special status in Canada. Also, the Queen may be the official head of the Church of England, but this does not give the Anglican church any special status in Canada, even theoretically:

• The Queen is head of the Church of England in her role as Queen of the UK, not in her role as Queen of Canada. So (I suppose) the British government could advise her about the Church of England, but the Canadian government could not.
• There is no one worldwide Anglican Church. There is a worldwide Anglican Communion, but it is a group of many separate churches which are in communion (i.e. they agree on points of faith and practices that they consider important, and recognize each others' rites as legitimate). These churches include the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Canada and many other "Anglican" and "Episcopal" churches.

--thirty-seven 04:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Queen is also a Presbyterian. Yet I don't see anyone suggesting that Canada is therefore a Presbyterian state. Yet it makes about as much sense as saying that Canada is Anglican because its Head of State is Anglican. No, there is no doubt that Canada is a secular state. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

well, whatever it is, the map at the article has included Canada. __earth ^(Talk) 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

French/English Discrimination

This article doesn't really show any information on the discrimination against the French people from the English during the 1930s-1940s. Perhaps someone with some knowledge on this subject can add some? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.17.13.5 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

need help

I am re-searching on Canada's Middle-power status in world affairs since 1950.Are there any articles here on wikipedia that people would recomend that I could use for my re-search regarding this topic? Any help would be appriciated.Thanks.--Vmrgrsergr 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion about the article in question, not for asking questions on where to get information for your school project, I'm afraid. Lexicon (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Although, you may want to try your question at the WP:Village Pump.--Ramdrake 18:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Location of province section

I don't think having the provinces as the second section is appropriate; it does not follow the style recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates. I think the old location is the best and that history needs to be after etymology; for those that don't know about the provinces, that's what the wikilinks are for. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I was not aware of this template. I'll move this section outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates. I moved it from the Geography section where it seemed awkward. I'll move the section to follow Wiki guidelines. Personally, I think it makes sense in the case of a country as decentralized as Canada to mention the provinces earlier to give some context for the politics and history. I'll recognize, though, that this is my personal opinion which seems somewhat weak compared to a Countries Template. --Soulscanner 03:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot agree. The article should have some logical flow. The first time Yukon (eg) is mentioned, people should NOT need to follow a link to find out roughly what it means - its context should already have been somewhat introduced in the article. Though hyperlinking changes the way we can do research, it does not change good writing style. It is not good writing style to introduce terms assuming your reader already knows them or that if he doesn't he can look it up. I guess I disagree with the template. Templates are outlines - they may not work in every case for every country - whether they work for any or not --JimWae 04:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• It might not make sense to list all the subdivisions early if there are lots of them (as in US [where territories few Americans know of are currently listed in lede now, btw], but 13 subdivisions is quite manageable --JimWae 04:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The current placement of this section seems to work, but I would otherwise prefer to have this section placed per the wikiproject template. Corticopia 04:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The first time that each province or territory is mentioned in the history section has enough context for the reader to understand what is happening, and in my mind is even better than a listing of the provinces and territories because it shows how each province and territory joined the federation. Being a featured article this article should follow the template which has reached consensus by many many different editors. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, it/they does/do not have enough context - one cannot tell if some places are cities, regions, colonies, provinces, etc. I have cited first mention of Yukon as an example already. Now that someone has rushed to make the move (after no reply above for a month), there will be many more such problems --JimWae 04:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Of all the provinces and territories that are mentioned before the provinces and territories section, only the Yukon does not have sufficient context. The confederation section clearly identifies regions joining to become provinces, and the north-west territories being created. A better solution that moving a whole section up, is to add one sentence to fix the Yukon issue. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ontario & Newfoundland (& likely many more) have exactly the same problem --JimWae 05:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Most of North America"

Canada does not occupy "most" of north america. It is the country that occupies the most of north america. I recommend changing it to something along the lines of "Canada is the largest country in North America." - More precise. Thanks! E

The lead for the introduction indicates, accurately, that Canada comprises most of ' northern North America' (which indicates its general location on the continent, compare with the United States which is largely in ' central North America'), and it is not the largest country in North America if land area alone is considered; see Geography of Canada. The proposed intro is inaccurate and somewhat redundant (largest in NA, yet 2nd largest in world), so I've tweaked the prior lead. Corticopia 15:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference that states that a country other than Canada is the largest in North America?--Ramdrake 15:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Largest by what measure? The article 'Geography of Canada' is rather clear regarding total/land/water area -- compare yourself: (from the CIA World Fact Book) Canada (which also describes Canada's location in 'northern North America' / United States. And, of course, the US is the largest in NA in terms of population (most populous). Really, why should we replace a clear lead with an unclear one? Corticopia 16:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The citation you give clearly states that Canada is "somewhat" larger than the United States. The overwhelming custom when speaking about the size of countries is to speak of the total area. Everybody learns in grade-school geography that Canada is the second largest country in the world, preceded by Russia and followed by the United States. What is unclear in that? And, should we be talking about the largest population-wise, we'd simply be monetioning "the most populous", which the US is. Area-wise, Canada is widely considered the second-largest country in the world and thus the largest in NA (since THE largest country is in Eurasia).--Ramdrake 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't corroborate assertions about what is customary: in grade-school, I learned that Canada was the second largest country in total area, but not in land area (and usually with the Canadian Oxford Atlas in hand). The revamped first sentence is unclear (largest by what measure?), and somewhat duplicates content that immediately follows it (with link to (emphasis mine) List of countries and outlying territories by total area).

As well, note that the original commentator appears to have misread the line to begin with -- referring to [Canada occupies] "most of North America" -- which by most accounts is not correct but may be if one considers NA to comprise just the US and Canada. Corticopia 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be because "northern North America" is unclear as a concept. The revamped section does state that it is the largest country in NA and second-largest in the world by total area (please re-read it if you don't believe me). I see this as pefectly clear.--Ramdrake 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Have to side with Corti here. Ramdrake's changes are not helpful. In addition, this is not a reiteration of your grade school geography class. This is an encyclopedia meant to represent the situation accurately for readers across the globe. Finally, "northern North America" is pretty clear, logically. Lexicon (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How is the predecessor unclear? It seems more that the original commentator was unclear or didn't fully comprehend/articulate to begin with. If necessary, 'Canada .... occupies much of the northern potion of North America' may suffice in lieu, but again the revamped intro is unclear. Corticopia 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, may I ask why it is alright to leave in that Canada is the second-largest country in the world by total area, but the fact that it is also the largest in North America (always by total are) is the part that gets eliminated? If one is to contest its ranking as largest in NA based on lan aread vs total area, one should logically also contest its rating as second-alrgest on the same basis, yet that metnion also stays. As far as the clarity of the concept of "northern North America" is concerned, would you consider "northern North America" to start at the 49th parallel (where most o the US-Canada border is located), at the 40th, the 55th? "Northern North America" may be a logical concept, but it lacks a formal, standard definition.--Ramdrake 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not contesting its ranking as second largest country in the world by total area; there is a direct link to the appropriate list to corroborate this widely-held view. As well, 'Northern North America' does not require a formal standard definition, just as Southern Africa, Northern Europe, Western Asia, or other regions/subregions do not -- however, they are variably defined: see Northern America. The long-standing lead is intended (methinks) to dually provide a general description of the country's location on the continent and indicate that it comprises much of NA by area. Anyhow, your revamped version communicates nothing already covered off and in a contestable way: it does not clearly indicate that Canada is the largest country by a specific measure in North America and, given that the next sentence clearly indicates that it is the second largest by that measure in the world, is redundant. And, unless a consensus supports your erroneous edit, I will be back later to rectify it. Corticopia 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro says Canada is the largest country in North America and the world's second-largest country by total area. To me, it is clear that the qualifier "by total area" should apply to both statements. If you want to make it clearer that the qualifier applies to both statements, go ahead; however, it was clear to me.--Ramdrake 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of proper grammar/parallelism. See, you must embolden the text to communicate the meaning there. It remains unclear: one can reasonably assume that the assertion of Canada's stature in NA may apply only to land area, in which case the statement is false (as the US is larger by that measure). Otherwise, the revamped lead is not productive. To properly communicate what you intend, it would have to read something like "Canada is the largest country in NA and the second largest in the world by total area." The option below is preferable. Corticopia 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I would agree with Dorvaq's proposal.--Ramdrake 18:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Canada is a country occupying most of northern North America. By total area, it is the largest country in North America and the second-largest in the world...

Or something along those lines. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

However, this is encouraging; perhaps (linked and eliminating unnecessary wordiness):

• Canada is a country occupying most of northern North America. By total area, it is the largest country on the continent and the second largest in the world.

Ideally, that it is the largest country in (on?) North America is a superlative that I believe should be in the 'Geography of Canada' section instead. Corticopia 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't assume the reader will understand Canada to be the largest country in North America given that it's the second largest in the world. If Canada were the largest country [in the world], then I would tend to agree with the superlative nature of the sentence. Yet given that it's not, I think the statement is quite informative on its own merit and has a similar effect to the entry regarding Brazil being the largest country in Latin America found on Brazil's page — one will not arrive at that conclusion knowing that Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood; I'm not trying to connect the two notions really. My point is this: it is noteworthy to indicate in the lead that Canada is the second largest country in the world, but I do not believe the same can be said for noting it as the largest country in NA (better down below). Corticopia 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you believe situating Canada geographically within North America (i.e. occupies most of northern North America) is more noteworthy than establishing Canada as the largest country in North America?... and my question is not meant to be sarcastic. One could argue that Canada's location within North America would also be better suited for the "Geography" section, where it's currently mentioned. I guess all of this comes down to individual preference really. Personally, I don't really care as long as both statements are mentioned and that they are not duplicated in another section. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that. Most country articles, from what I gather, describe where a country is upfront (its location), and then expand appropriately. The prior, long-standing lead (1) situates Canada in NA, and (2) situates it in the north of the continent. The current one, well, is less informative, and I've demonstrated above that it may be incorrect -- at least Lexicon agrees. The current intro starts off by listing a superlative which really doesn't mean anything and is contestable: even if it is the largest, where in NA is it? I mean, I don't know of another major publication that starts off by describing Canada as the largest country in NA ... but many do describe it as the 2nd largest in the world (by total area) because that's a notable superlative. Besides, the instigating error seems to have misunderstood the entire sentence (i.e., 'most of North America' was not even in the intro) or the point of it. Anyhow, when I can/grudgingly, I'll change it per your recommended text. Corticopia 00:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This may just throw a spanner in the works, but I've rejigged the opening a bit. I've kept the ideas discussed here regarding size. However, the problem with the the old version (as I see it) was that the first line defined the country purely on the basis of geography. With that in mind, I've taken a page from the United States article and rearranged the lead paragraph as follows:

"Canada is a federal constitutional monarchy with parliamentary democracy, comprising ten provinces and three territories. It is the largest country in North America, and the world's second-largest by total area. Extending westward from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean, Canada occupies the majority of the northern portion of North America, sharing land borders with the United States to the northwest and south."

While it may seem like a big change, the primary difference is that the lead sentence from paragraph three has been moved to the top of paragraph one. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It still retains the inexactitude of 'largest in NA' blurb. Well, I prefer the alternate suggested by Dorvaq, with modification, and will place this. Corticopia 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support this alternate (or similar):

"Canada is a federal constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, comprising ten provinces and three territories. By total area, it is the largest country in North America and the second-largest in the world. Extending westward from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean, Canada occupies a major northern portion of the continent, sharing land borders with the United States to the northwest and south."

or replace 'of the continent' with 'of North America'. Thoughts? Corticopia 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I like where this is going, but if we're going to mirror the United States' lead paragraph, then I now agree with Corticopia — we should remove the reference to Canada being the largest country in North America and place the statement in the "Geography" section instead. We should not forget to remove the geographical localization of Canada from that section as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. While I am agreeable to tweaking text, I still am perplexed as to why Ramdrake continually insists on fixing 'alliteration', when even the source cited in the introduction -- the only one (CIA World Factbook)-- describes Canada's location as 'northern North America.' As well, the 'Canada' entry in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary notes 'N North America'. On those grounds alone, I think this literation should remain. Corticopia 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This alliteration is something that should under normal circumstances be avoided in an encyclopedia. Besides, I find "the northern half of North America" to be more descriptive and exact than just "northern North America" don't you think? And as for WP:CITE, if you say "The CIA factbook describes it as" and then give an exact qote, it's a cite. If you borrow the quote verbatim and don't attribute it, it can be seen as a WP:COPYVIO.--Ramdrake 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be avoided? The instigating editor seemed confused to begin with (precipitating changes to an introduction which was unchanged for some time), and at least one other editor above (Lexicon) disagrees with you, yet another (Dorvaq) believes that the '2nd in NA blurb' should be moved down to the geography section. If a consensus doesn't (materialise to) support recent edits, I will make appropriate edits tomorrow. As for other commentary, I can't comment but I am not the one insinuating contestable content into the introduction without citation. Corticopia 15:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we use a version of Ckatz and Corticopia's suggestions, it would eliminate both "northern half of..." and "northern North America", which I find is a fair and agreeable compromise. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not support removal of its location in (northern) North America from the introduction, though feel free to tweak it. So, another alternate will have to do -- the current lead is also passable. Corticopia 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting removing Canada's location entirely from the introduction. I was suggesting using your last version with the removal of Canada being second largest in North America. Such as (or version thereof):

"Canada is a federal constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, comprising ten provinces and three territories. By total area, it is the second-largest country in the world. Extending westward from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean, Canada occupies a major northern portion of North America, sharing land borders with the United States to the northwest and south."

As mentioned earlier, the statement eliminates both the use of "northern half of..." and "northern North America" while still situating Canada in North America. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I see: sorry for the misunderstanding. :) That would work for me (with one tweak). Corticopia 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

However, I wouldn't support removing the fact that it is the largest country in North America, total area-wise. Again, the fact that it is the second-largest country in the world does not infer that it is the largest in North America. Basically, we'd come back full circle. I find the introduction appropriate as it is now. About alliterations: I was raised being told to avoid them in normal language, as it gives a sing-song, rhyme-like rythm to that part of the sentence when spoken aloud; that would be why it's a bad idea stylistically - if it can be fairly easily avoided.--Ramdrake 18:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I lean on removing that factoid (i.e., Canada is 2nd largest in NA): it is not really notable, uncited, and (correct me if I'm wrong) its inclusion is not supported through any consensus (at least three have commented on removing it or are ambivalent towards it). Retain it if it can be refactored accurately in the introduction, and I'm open to suggested tweaks by other editors above. I can't speak for your interpretation of 'alliterations', since 'nNA' has been in place for quite some time on this heavily travelled article without a peep and no consensus as yet supports its removal. As for coming full circle: be careful what you wish for. Corticopia 21:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind submitting the question to a straw poll or to an RfC. I wouldn't dismiss the fact as any less notable than its position in NA or the fact that it is the 2nd overall in total area (and for the record, the largest in total area in NA, despite the fact that you keep for some reason writing that it is the 2nd in size in NA).--Ramdrake 22:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive the confusion; however, the only active advocate I see for the inclusion in the lead that Canada is the largest country in NA is you. Moreover, to launch a poll or RfC for such a limited notion and minor, unreferenced superlative – despite discussions which seem to lean against including this information in the lead – is arguably a tendentious attempt to make a point. Corticopia 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, we're not suggesting removing the entry entirely from the article. Instead, we're suggesting removing the statement from the introduction and placing it in the Geography section of the article. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for initially misquoting the original line. I have looked and can find no common academic consensus regarding what is northern north america and can find no wikipedia article on it either. I have searched. Unless someone can find a citable definition I think we need to change the opening sentence to be something more clear. It is unencyclopedic in define something by its relationship to an unaccepted term. I am happy with any change that is correct, whether it is the second largest by area in the world, the largest in north america by area, or the eighth largest economy, I really dont care. But to term it as "most" of "northern north america" is not precise or encyclopedic. Thanks! PS, sorry that I cant check this as often as you guys to do stay up with the debate, but it is through these conversations we make a better resource for the world! Horray! Oo7jeep 20:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. First of all, despite your investigations, you didn't look hard enough: there are a number of reputable sources which indicate that Canada is in "northern North America": the CIA World Factbook (which was noted in the above discussion), (in brief) the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, parallel geographical dictionary. (I can cite these in text, but the single reference to the CIA WFB is sufficient, I think.) I can also direct you to the more than 100K online instances of the term. Second, a number of editors have commented -- at least three -- that they are fine with the phrasing and/or that it is already clear, so there's no consensus to change it. Third, compare with Northern America (compare with Anglo-America), a sometimes used term for the northerly region of North America. Fourth, I'm unsure what the real challenge is: the lead is precise enough to be informative, yet concise enough to leave the details to other sections (in this case, the geography section). It's both correct and encyclopedic, so until a rush decides otherwise ... Corticopia 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone uses the term "Northern North America" it doesnt make it a definable term. Show me a map that shows an outline of Northern North America. Where does it start? Really, I'm not mincing words here, but there is no such defined thing. Yes you can search google and find people using the term Northern North America, but it isnt a precise term. I'm not going to force this issue, but this is definitely not preferred and imprecise. Oo7jeep 02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I will let the issue drop, but I will try to find a way that we can all agree is an improvement. Oo7jeep 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First Sentence

The first sentence should be changed to "Canada is a federal constitutional monarchy made up of 10 provinces, and several territories."

Just like how the USA article starts... "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic made up of 50 states, one federal district, and several territories."

Is there a reason why these two articles differ?

Is there a reason why Canada is, say, different from the (articles for the) United Kingdom, France, Ireland, et al. -- it's a matter of style, but is also being discussed above. Corticopia 18:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• As I understand it, it is an attempt to keep as many paragraphs as possible as coherent as possible. First about geography, second about history. Third - political, economic, cultural & whatever else is not enough to make a paragraph of its own --JimWae 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's not several territories, there's three territories, which, unlike the American example, form an integral part of the country. The reason the articles differ is because they're about different countries with different concepts of "territory." fishhead64 05:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

I've tried to tweak the 2nd paragraph of the introduction, summarising the country's history an little more fully. I'm not sure if I'm getting it right, though, particularly my choices of piped links. Comments/editions are welcomed. Corticopia 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Northern North America" or "Northern half of North America"

I had first changed the wording following the comment of a user who read "northern North America" as just "North America". I felt it was more precise this way, and it seemed that people weren't against it. However, User:Corticopia, in sending the bits of intro he didn't agree with to the geography section, also managed to revert verbatim to the old wording of the introduction. I would like people's feedback on whether "northern North America" or "northern half of North America" is most precise and also least likely to cause the same confusion in the future.--Ramdrake 22:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the issue here? The original commentator seemed to completely misread/misunderstand the sentence to begin with, and then you -- consistent with recent accusations against you of tendentious editing -- have taken up the mantle to change the long-standing lead (i.e., not changed in months). I and at least one other editor (Lexicon) had no problem with 'nNA' -- which, noted in the CIA World Factbook, is clear and succinct -- and considered your efforts unproductive, and other editors have either been indifferent or have suggested completely different leads. Your suggested content edits about Canada being the largest country in NA were, through consensus, moved to the 'geography' section where they may belong. Moreover, your suggested syntax (or similar) for the article lead is already harked in the lead for the 'geography' section, so why should we be redundant? As well, indicating that Canada occupies the northern half of NA may be misleading: by what measure? Do we reckon the northerly portion of the continent to include Ellesmere Island and the rest of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, or to only consider the mainland (and not islands), a not uncommon understanding of continents (e.g., 'beginning' at Melville Peninsula), in which case the Canadian mainland comprises closer to the northern third of the continent? At this point, I don't really care, but I'll be back later. Of course, I'll adhere to whatever a consensus arrives at. Corticopia 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You may dispute whether the Arctic Archipelago is part of the continent,in which case latitude-wise what you say may sound right, but area-wise, Canada still comprises 41% of North America (nearly half), which still makes the sentence "Canada occupies most of the northern half of North America" true. So, any way you cut it, the sentence is still right whether or not you count the Arctic Archipelago as part of North America. And to boot, it would be right latitude-wise also if one opted Central America out of North America, which a lot of people do.--Ramdrake 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And, after checking, Wikipedia has this to say about the Geography of North America: North America consists of all the mainland and related offshore islands lying north of the Isthmus of Panama (which joins with South America). So it should be clear that the standard definition should include the islands of the Arctic Archipelago.--Ramdrake 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough (particularly regarding Central America), but I still maintain that we needn't recapitulate the first line of the 'geography' section as the first line of the intro -- two editors maintain that the syntax of the prior lead is clear, and nothing has since changed. I will await additional editorial input before acting any further. Corticopia 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see no problem with "most of northern NA", but I do have to wonder about "most of the northern half of NA" - because it seems to suggest that there is some way to divide NA in half - (by latitude? by MX-US boundary? by US-Canada boundary? by some line of latitude that would divide NA's area in half?) Canada is all land (and considerable water) north of the lower 48 states of the US - except for Alaska, Greenland & those 2 French Islands. "Most of northern NA" is fine & simple - it locates the country within NA, which is all the lede needs to do - confusion because of alliteration blindness is not a reason to change --JimWae 02:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes; thus, I have restored the prior -- and long-standing -- lead. Editors wanting to change it should garner consensus before making any changes. Corticopia 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have since enhanced the intro further, swapping 2nd/3rd sentences in the first paragraph to yield a more logical flow of information: location > scope > area. Corticopia 10:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd vote to keep it as succinct as possible. It's an introduction. I think the locator map makes it clear where Canada is. Let's give wikireaders some credit. If you understand what "North: means, you'll be able to read the locator map. I'd have nothing against simply saying that Canada is in North American country and North of the contiguous United States. --Soulscanner 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't want to get involved here, but here goes:

Editors do not need to "garner consensus" before changing the lead sentence or paragraph. This is a wiki. The fact that some aspect of an article is "long-standing" is meaningless. The fact that it has been discussed ad nauseam is meaningless. In the absence of any consensus—and make no mistake, there is no consensus here—any editor can change the lead at any time and for any reason. As long as this doesn't devolve into an edit war (some of you are aware of my distaste for those), no discussion is necessary.

I know some people like the mental masturbation of circular logic and semantic arguments on talk pages, but I'm not into that. I'd rather write an encyclopedia. Is anyone denying that Canada is the largest country in North America? Of course not. The only things being discussed are a) whether "northern North America" is a valid term, and b) whether superlatives belong in the intro. You guys want to argue that, go for it. There's no basis in policy for either side of either point, so as far as I'm concerned it's a pointless discussion. Canada is the largest country in North America, there is nothing that says the intro can't point that out, there is no consensus about any of the other suggestions, so there's no reason why the intro sentence can't say "Canada is the largest country in North America" until the rest of that is sorted out. Kafziel ^Talk 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it Corticopia :)

Howdy, Corticopia. Your edits to the "Canada" page are fine. The thing is for some reason my "screwball" countrymen can not agree on anything written on this page.

long form name: no agreement

type of government: no agreement

location in North America: no agreement.

This is probably one of the most schizophrenic articles on Wikipedia.

Take care, eh ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph in lead

I think the second paragraph in the lead is now much too detailed for the lead; we don't have to go through Canada's history in this paragraph starting with the settlements, etc; that's what the History section is for. The length in combination with the number of blue links makes it very difficult to read. I suggest we go back to the way it was a week ago. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Introductions need to be short, lest they give the impression of rambling. The longer introduction overweights the history section, and needlessly repeats details mentioned later on. I think simply mentioning that Canada gradually gained its independence from Britain incrementally is enough as far as history goes. We should agree to keep the introduction to less than 150 words. --Soulscanner 07:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did request feedback above, but I would not suggest a complete reversion to 'a week ago'. The introduction remains short -- the edits were meant to provide a bit more detail without overloading the introduction. When I read the prior introduction, assuming the position of a neophyte, I asked myself: why does Britain have so crucial a role in Canada's history? It was lacking. I mean, there was no mention of the French colonial influence that would even give a hint of this (and, thus, Canada's resulting bilingualism), and explorations leading up to the colonial dominance of Britain. As well, the prior introduction indicated that Canada was originally inhabited by aboriginals, but then skips ahead to the late 19th century. Feel free to 'dewikify' some of the links (and I disagree that it is 'difficult to read' because of that; just look at other paragraphs below) and I'll try to prune somewhat, but I think the intro remains succinct -- really, it is about the same length than the intro for Australia and is dwarfed by those for the United Kingdom and United States .... Corticopia 14:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom and the United States are not featured articles so they are not the articles to compare to. The lead was something that was greatly discussed when the article was upgraded to featured article status, and I believe it was succinct allowing people to understand the nation of Canada and not the land currently which is Canada. Also from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking:_what.27s_the_best_ratio.3F, if a section has more than 10% of the words linked it is overlinked. I still believe the way it was a week ago is the best way to go, and I believe Soulscanner agrees with me. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have pruned and tweaked the intro, and will continue to. The wiki guideline you cite is just that (which should first be applied to the rest of the article, which is excessively overlinked) and is being dealt with. Nor have you really attempted to explain the logic of a history paragraph that skips ahead straight to Confederation, and omits events before that: that's not a helpful history paragraph (if it even was that?). Australia, which I also compared to and has also been a feature article, makes some attempt to explain its pre-state status in the second paragraph, and this article should be no different. In its former state, China was also a featured article with a lengthy lead. At this point, I am unwilling to relent because two editors prefer brevity to even just a wee bit more informative detail. Corticopia 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I can deal with striking the Vikings. :) Corticopia 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The historical influence of France and Britain are dealt with in the History section and several other places in the article. The point is that this changing the lead of an article as dramatically as this requires more than a consensus of one. Jeff3000 points out that the old lead represents a consensus that was arrived at after a long discussion that resulted in the article becoming a featured article.It would be good form to seek a consensus on these dicussion pages first or edit wars will result. --Soulscanner 03:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point: the prior 2nd paragraph was incomplete, giving barely a whiff of the historical conflict between English and French which has resulted in the country's political union and bilingualism. It now contains necessary context and provides a succinct bridge of events up to Confederation. Arguments about notions being found elsewhere (e.g., 'duplicated') are somewhat moot, since this is true of a number of factoids in the introduction and throughout article -- in any event, the article remains rather bloated and pruning should happen elsewhere (e.g., shunting microdetails to subarticles). I do not see grand resistance to the tweaked introduction, despite discussion, and I fail to see how adding necessary context is a dramatic change in an article which by its very nature is not static. Corticopia 03:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request Picture of a sitting of the House of Commons

It would be nice to add a picture of a sitting of the House of Commons in the "Government and Politics" section. Official picures from government websites (that aren't 50 years old) apparantly do not satisfy Wiki copywrite policies. I embarrassed myself by attempting to post one under the impression that it was okay. If anyone has an "action shot" of a debate, I think it would add some dynamism to a rather dry subject and improve the page. Has anyone found anything? --Soulscanner 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bill 101

I'm trying to include a reference to the UN Human Rights Committee's 1991 ruling that Bill 101 and the Charter of the French Language violated the human rights of an Anglophone Quebecker. The case was No. 455 (Allan Singer v. Canada)

The citation is here

Soviet Canuckistan 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering this is a general article on Canada, and also considering the law has since been amended, what is the notability of this factoid?--Ramdrake 22:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The notability of this factoid is that for the United Nations Organisation to rule on this issue in favour of the English-Speaking Quebecers it shows under international law the French-Quebecer majority was suppressing the English-Quebecer minority. That is the notability.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't contest that, so this would be notable in an article on Languages of Canada, on Politics of Canada, likely also in their Quebec equivalent. The question I am asking is more pointedly "how is this a notable or defining fact of Canada or of its history?" anymore than, say the Manitoba Schools Act?--Ramdrake 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured that since the Charter of the French Language is mentioned, it might worthwhile to note that it violates international law.

Soviet Canuckistan 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "violated" is the correct tense. It was amended in 1993 to allow bilingual signs, and bilingual signs have been fully legal for nearly 15 years now.--Ramdrake 00:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please See Bill 86. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of other, more appropriate articles to place that information on (like, say, Bill 101 or Anglo-Quebecer); it does not belong on a basic overview article about Canada as a whole, particularly given that Bill 101 hasn't been in force for about 15 years now. It is not so centrally important to a basic understanding of Canada that it needs to be mentioned in this article, which is already overly detailed and in much greater need of having old stuff taken out than of having new stuff put in. Bearcat 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't give "two-shits" about international law. Nonetheless, the United Nations Organisation did make that ruling in favour of the English-Quebecers. Anyway you slice it, the ruling is noteworthy. So why not have it front-and-centre in the main Canada article.

Secondly, the Province of Quebec within the Dominion of Canada has for mainly years acted like a defacto independent country (with the apathy of English-Canada). Frankly, I would love to see Quebec Partitioned. The lower-third of Quebec could become the independent country of le Republique de Quebec (or le Republique Quebecois), and the upper-two thirds (Ruperts' Land) decide to do what it wants (i.e. (i). stay with Canada, (ii). go with Quebec, (iii), join the United States of America, or (iv). become its own independent country). Then you, le Republique de Quebec, can make all the repressive language laws you want (without dragging the good-name of the Dominion of Canada into "it").

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it la and not "le" république :P . Second of all, not all the people (especially in the Canton-Est) would agree with your opinion. and Third, Canada is no longer a "dominion" since we got back our constitution from the UK. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 03:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But I agree, Québec does act on its own sometimes. But if the Québecois do declare independence, it would be hard for them to survive cause they need federal money to even support their massive spending. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, I thought this page was for discussing changes to the article, and not meant to discuss individual political views? I'll stop here, lest I get myself started (and you don't want that) ;b --Ramdrake 17:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nat Tang wrote,

"Canada is no longer a "dominion" since we got back our constitution from the UK"

Prove it.

What you express is simply an opinion, it is not a Constitutionally accepted axiom. The long form name of the Dominion of Canada is still in dispute today (it is only suppressed here at Wikipedia).

BTW, the 1982 Constituion still contains in the "black-and-white" text that Canada is a Dominion. The term Dominion is a FEUDAL RANK, which indicates our (symbolic) Head-of-State is a King/Queen (i.e., A King/Queen rules a Kingdom, Dominion, Union, or Commonwealth).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution Act of 1982 does not even contain the word "Dominion". I know that, and I quote, "The term Dominion is a FEUDAL RANK, which indicates our (symbolic) Head-of-State is a King/Queen (i.e., A King/Queen rules a Kingdom, Dominion, Union, or Commonwealth).", but the term has officially fell out of use here in Canada. If anything, firstly the term "Dominion" is frowned upon as it makes us look like we're a dominion of Great Britain, secondly, the Government of Canada, the Parliament, any major Government organ, Provincial Governments and organs, the United Nations, etc, no longer uses this title at all, and third, and this is my opinion, we are more like a Kingdom, as the Queen, although she is the monarch of other nations as well as Canada, she is the Queen of Canada. (I think I'm rambling on...:P) Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 04:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

and yes it might be still disputed, but the Government of Canada no longer uses the tern dominion. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

and the term is only pushed by a small group of people and not the majority of the population. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 04:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

and the term would pissed the Québecois even further, which is not a good idea. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 04:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nat Tang,

Canada Act 1982

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/Canada_Act_1982.html

The essence of the Canada Act 1982 was two-fold,

(i). to consolidate all the previous British North America Act(s), re-name them as Constitution Act(s), and add an AMENDING FORMULA to the Canadian Constitution (which was previously absent),

(ii). to add a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So Nat Tang, when you say the following,

"The Constitution Act of 1982 does not even contain the word "Dominion"."

this is patently FALSE. As per Part (i). of the Canada Act 1982, the Constitution Act 1982 DOES CONTAIN the word Dominion.

I. PRELIMINARY.

1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867.(2)

2. Repealed(3)

II. UNION. 3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)

Upon inspection of Clause 3 of the Constitution Act 1867, which is consolidated into the Constitution Act 1982, which forms the first part of the Canada Act 1982, the explicit phrase(s),

One Dominion under the Name of Canada

One Dominion under that Name

define Canada with the FEUDAL RANK of a Dominion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Canada is a dominion, under the name of "Canada", rather than "Dominion of Canada" (compare with the wording of the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand, for example), right?--Ramdrake 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you get editblocked at one point for pursuing this little windmill-hunting campaign of yours over "Dominion"? Do you ever learn? Pick yer spots, bucky; you're going to get blocked again if you don't drop this one. Bearcat 05:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat. On what grounds would you recommend that I get blocked? How have my above comments specifically violated Wikipedia's code-of-conduct. If you could explicitly point out my violation(s), I would most appreciate it indeed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you're starting to revive an inappropriate and tiresome POV campaign that you've already been blocked for on at least one previous occasion may not violate the letter of Wikipedia's code of conduct, but it certainly violates the spirit. Keep that in mind and decide accordingly; speaking as an administrator, I am fully prepared to institute and enforce another editblock if this nonsense doesn't stop pretty damned soon. Bearcat 05:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat, it is well within your rights to do so. However, you are showing personal bias in executing your threats.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly am not. Bearcat 05:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ummmm...Nat.tang also said: ..the Government of Canada, the Parliament, any major Government organ, Provincial Governments and organs, the United Nations, etc, no longer officially use this title at all... Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 05:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nat Tang, I agree with you. The Government of Canada does not use the term Dominion. However, the fact that is not used (i.e., its lack of usage) does not negate long form name of the Dominion of Canada. It just means that they have chosen to only use the unoffical short from name of Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Question the first: This relates to Bill 101 (the actual topic at hand) how, exactly?

Question the second: If nobody, no government, no institution, no organization of any note whatsoever uses the "Dominion of Canada" form, then what the f*ck is the point of even getting into an argument about it here? Bearcat 05:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat, does the explicit use of swear-words (on your part by-the-way) constitute a breach of the Wikipedia code-of-conduct? I am requesting a clarification on this matter. If it does not constitute a breach, I shall perhaps avail me-self the usage of some fine "cuss-words" to return the courtesy.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You're going to be waiting one millennial heck a long time if you expect that a naughty word with the vowel asterisked out merits any kind of reprimand. You're also going to be sorely surprised if you think that it would justify your using a "cuss-word" without a judicious letter substitution or two. Bearcat 05:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So I take it that's a "no" to including Bill 101?

Soviet Canuckistan 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say for now, it is a no, that's correct.--Ramdrake 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Feudal Rank

• On what grounds does dominion signify a "feudal rank" rather than a "title" or a "description"? --JimWae 05:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Dominion" (ie., Dominion Status) is a FEUDAL RANK of a country. But "dominion" is not.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

People have "feudal ranks". Countries do not. Bearcat 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Bearcat. Countries do have FEUDAL RANKS.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Click here: feudal rank. Tell us where legal names of countries come into what you get when you read that. Feudal ranks have to do with social class stratifications and the role of nobility. Countries do not have class stratifications; countries are not classified within a hierarchy of greater or lesser ranks. Bearcat 05:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Bearcat. Countries that are Monarchies (whether Absolute Monarchies, or Constitutional Monarchies) all have FEUDAL RANKS. Only Republics do not possess them.

Please inspect the following Wikipedia article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg

Please note the country's long form name (i.e., the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article Luxembourg suggests nothing about "feudal ranks". And if you click on Grand Duchy, it's categorized in Category:Forms of government, not Category:Feudal ranks. Bearcat 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Like you said to me Prove It. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 05:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I find any suggestion that Canada is still involved in some feudal ranking scheme far more objectionable than saying it still has some title (which is hardly ever used anymore, and still exists only because it would be impolitic to remove it) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism#Revolt_against_the_term_feudalism --JimWae 05:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• THe long form name of Canada is the same as its short form name - since 1867 there has been but one name for the country --JimWae 05:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect JimWae. The short form name of a country can not, by definition, be the same as its long form name.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it would be that "Canada" does not have a "long form name", as the CIA factbook entry on Canada would tend to demonstrate.--Ramdrake 18:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon, Are you implying that we, Canada, are subordinate to the United Kingdom? Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 06:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nat Tang. No, the Dominion of Canada is equal in FEUDAL RANK to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This was explicitly codified by the Statute of Westminster 1931.

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/westmins.htm

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Neither feudal nor rank appear in that document & I find your continued use of the term (especially repeatedly in ALL CAPS) approaching trolling --JimWae 06:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• If there is no hierarchy of superior or subordinate entities, then there is no rank, because ranking, by definition, requires the things being ranked to be unequal in status. If there is no inequality of status, then by definition the entities in question do not hold ranks. Bearcat 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• And Canada & UK were NOT of equal rank in 1867 - that would appear to indicate either the term no longer means what it meant then OR that, de facto, Canada is no longer truly a dominion --JimWae 06:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Feudal Ranks derive from the Order of Precedence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And how is that relivent to countries/nations and not a person or persons? Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Feudal Rank is relevant to BOTH countries and people (i.e., their Sovereigns).

An Empire is ruled by an Emporer,

A Kingdom is ruled by a King,

A Principality is ruled by a Prince,

A Duchy is ruled by a Duke,

A Marche is ruled by a Marquis,

An Earldom is ruled by an Earl,

A County is ruled by a Count,

An Estate is ruled by a Baron.

The generic form is,

A Fiefdom is rule by a Lord of a Fief (or Fiefer-lord).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

- so who 'rules in Canada, eh? Or in UK for that matter? --JimWae 08:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The person holds a rank. The country does not, because the country is not subordinate to another country. Subordination is not optional — it's inherent in the very the definition of the word rank. If the thing is not subordinate to another thing, then it does not have a rank. Order of precedence, by its very nature, also requires there to be superior and inferior entities within said list. If there is no inequality in a given list, then there is neither rank nor precedence — rank and precedence, by their very definitions, cannot and do not exist in a field of equals. They require a hierarchy.

By the very definition of the word "rank", if Canada has a "rank", then another country has to rank above Canada. By the very definition of the word "rank", if Canada is not subordinate to any other country, then Canada does not have a rank. It's one or the other, buckminster, so which is it gonna be? Bearcat 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect again, Bearcat. A country has a Feudal Rank just as much as its Sovereign does. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ruled by a Grand Duke (i.e., above a Duke but below a Prince). Similiarly, the Principality of Monaco is ruled by a Prince. The Monarchies were established via the Feudal System, each country having its own Feudal Rank. Go look up some old books on the subject before you start making un-informed pronouncements.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 09:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not incorrect. If Canada has a rank, then Canada is subordinate to some other country, because the very concept of rank inherently requires superiority and inferiority. So what country is Canada subordinate to? Bearcat 09:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bearcat, you are incorrect. Canada has the FEUDAL RANK of a Dominion. A King/Queen rules a Kingdom, Dominion, Union, or Commonwealth. Therefore, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand all have an equal FEUDAL RANK.

Until 1914:

Empire(s): Russian Empire, German Empire, Austrio-Hunganian Empire,

Kingdom(s): Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,

Principalities: Monaco, Lichtenstein,

Grand Duchies: Luxembourg

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

-- in 1867 Canada certainly was not "equal" to UK. So if dominion implys rank, either dominion no longer means what it meant then, or Canada is no longer a dominion. Did I say that already? --JimWae 09:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

JimWae, first of all we are discussing Dominion, not dominion. Until you get Dominion right, you are not worth talking to.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 09:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

-- get over yourself... and respond to the issues being raised with more than "you are wrong" --JimWae 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon, I believe that this subject was previously discussed, and a consensus was reached that we as a community not use the name "Dominion of Canada" was not the way to go, as the Government of Canada, its organs and its agencies, the provincial Governments, their organs and agencies, the United Nations, its organs and agencies, and pretty much the rest of the world, as well as the vast majority of the Canadian people, do not use the term "Dominion of Canada". It is only a small group of extreme Monachist that would even try to push the revival and use of the term "Dominion of Canada". ArmchairVexillologistDon, stop tring to push a POV that the community has said "no" to. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And If you have any problems with the government not using "Dominion of Canada" try starting a case with Supreme Court of Canada. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nat Tang. Yes, I know that the consensus at Wikipedia denies the long form name of Dominion of Canada. Wikipedia is run by consensus. However, just because consensus says "something", does not make it true.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: And If you have any problems with the government not using "Dominion of Canada" try starting a case with Supreme Court of Canada and not on Wikipedia. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nat Tang. I find your comments about the Supreme Court of Canada very un-courteous.ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I was rude in any way, but I just finished dealing with an political-ideological extremist who was trying to push his POV and when he couldn't get his way, he went berserk by causing a lot of damage to articles and userpages. See the fustration. Anyways, I apologize. What I meant was, Wikipedia is not the place to be pushing a POV. People who do that often run into a lot of problems with other editors, especially if a topic was already discussed and rejected. You know, if you really want to change the whole thing from "Canada" to "Dominion of Canada", you could set up another section on this talk page or the "name of Canada" talk page and ask if people would support or oppose the proposed change, essentially asking for another consensus. I don't know if people will support it, but it's worth the try. (BTW...taking something like this - challenging the Government with the whole name thing - to the Supreme Court would be kind of interesting to watch.) Anyhoo, I'm sorry if I had offended you in any way. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 04:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nat Tang. I wish to sincerely apologise to you. You have been open-minded and non-judgemental thoughout this issue. I wanted to apologise to you a few days ago, but I needed to "cool-off" first.

To essence of my point-of-view is stated below,

Upon inspection, the astute observer will notice the parallel naming fucntions in the phrase(s),

Act of Union 1707 (Article 1)

"One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain"

British North America Act 1867 (Clause 3)

"One Dominion under the Name Canada"

The Preamble of the BNA Act 1867 explicitly states that the Constitution of Canada is based directly on that of Great Britain, thus by Comperative Constitutional Law Convensions, if the long form name was designated the United Kingdom of Great Britain (or the bothersome assertion of the Kingdom of Great Britain) then it follows that the Dominion of Canada was designated to the Union of British North America.

However, BOTH long form name(s) of United Kingdom of Great Great and the Dominion of Canada are definitely "not accepted" here at Wikipedia.

Perhaps in the future someone else will look into this.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How dare Don take umbrage at anything any other editor says? At Talk:Canada's name, he said that "Wikipedia is still run by the votes of the ignorant mob". Don continues to show contempt for anyone who disagrees with him, which seems to be the vast majority of people. Don refuses to withdraw the remark and apologize -- he does not seem to think that the Wikipedia policy on no personal attacks applies to him. We can see why his behaviour has lead to him being blocked repeatedly, and banned for a year. I encourage other editors not to engage him in debate until he decides that he is willing to live by our community's norms of behaviour and courtesy. I agree that his persistence in pushing this issue verges on trolling. Ground Zero | t 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ground Zero wrote,

"How dare Don take umbrage at anything any other editor says?"

I see.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You may see, but you do not understand that insulting other Wikipedia editors by calling us an "ingnorant mob" is

1. counterproductive because it makes you come across as a dick,
2. violates Wikipedia policy, and that sort of thing gets you banned, as you well know; and
3. is simply rude.

So don't ask other editors to live up to standards that you do not think should apply to you. Ground Zero | t 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ground Zero, you seem to be taking my rather "minor opinion" on how things operate here at Wikipedia very personally. As previously stated, there was no personal attack, and nothing was directed at you.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have been one of the editors actively resisting your attempts to post your original research here, there can be no question that I am a part of your "ignorant mob". Even if for some reason you exclude me, the policy on no personal attacks applies, and as an amdinistrator it part of my role to point out to you that you must not make personal attacks against anyone here, e.g., by calling them "ignorant". Don't bother suggesting that "ignorant" is anything but a personal attack. It is not a term of endearment or respect. Just stop it, and respect Wikipedia policies and otehr editors like everyone else does here. Ground Zero | t 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

GroundZero, in my perceiption you still are showing a strong degree of "personal-bias" against my "opinions". If I recall correctly, this possibly became very evident after I suggested that your own idea for "Canada's Government" would best be described by the long form name of the Electorate of Canada. In the end, if you feel that you have a "case-against-me" then make it ... or leave me be.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada has the Feudal Rank of a Dominion

DoubleBlue wrote,

This has been debated to death over several years but to restate some important facts: The modern use of the term "Dominion" (i.e., since 1867) signifies an independent state, not a feudal rank. The term "Dominion" is the title of the country, in the same way "Republic", "Kingdom", and the like entitle countries. "Dominion" still is the title of Canada, it has just become more disused recently, mostly, I believe, because it has no suitable French equivalent. Cheers all and debate respectfully, please. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

DoubleBlue, please inspect the following Resolution of Confederation written in two different sets of documents (Resolution 71 in 1864, Resolution 68 in 1866),

Quebec Resolutions 1864

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/confederation/023001-245-e.html

71.That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces.

London Resolutions 1866

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Rapids/3330/constitution/1866lr.htm

68.That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Confederation.

Please look at the two bolded blue words ... what is the first word?

rank ... not title.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Restore second paragraph of lead to Version of June 2

Changing the lead of a featured article this dramatically requires more than a consensus of one. The old lead represents a consensus that was arrived at after a long discussion that resulted in the article becoming a featured article. It would be better form in an article as advanced as this to seek a consensus on this dicussion page before editing the lead. --Soulscanner 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Revert for reasons stated above. --Soulscanner 03:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If I had to pick one second lead paragraph I'd go further back, like the April 3rd version, which is somewhat longer than the June 2nd version and mentions the French colonies, but doesn't have too much detail for the lead. The current paragraph is ok as well, except that I think there is too much blue in the paragraph, and would recommend leaving some the links to be added to subsequent paragraphs instead of the lead. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons I've stated above: the predecessor was incomplete and barely gave a whiff of the historical conflict between English and French (and said timeframe) which has resulted in the country's political union and bilingualism. The 2nd paragraph now contains necessary context and provides a succinct bridge of events up to Confederation. I'm open to further enhancements, and it continues to evolve; I am also fine with the current paragraph (but I'm unsure how the 'blue' can be mitigated given its loaded nature: e.g., how can you not link 'federal' upfront?). I also fail to see the utility of initiating a 'vote' to revert despite ongoing discourse above and insinuations of a false consensus; sounds to me like an inability to compel through persuasion. Corticopia 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In my mind it's better to evenly spread out the links so that it's easier to read than linking all the important concepts right away. For example Federal is not as important a concept in the sentence in the second paragraph as the other links in that sentence and takes away from the other important links. The concept of a Federal constitutional Monarchy is already linked in the third lead paragraph. Regards, -- 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I hear you, but (for example) the first instance of 'federal' (federalism (philosophy) or federation (entity resulting from that philosophy), compared to unitary), coupled with 'dominion', succinctly describes the nature of the entity that resulted from Confederation in 1867 which, in turn, resulted from British/French strife. I think this is also an important notion but that initial link, if need be, can be removed. At one point, I altered the links in the 3rd paragraph to read as (just) "constitutional monarchy ... A federation comprising ..." Corticopia 04:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pushing monarchist POV in lead

The lead of this page is obviously being edited to push a monarchist POV which is antiquated in Canada. The lead should mention that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, but frankly, the Prime Mionister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of the House, the Governor General, the provincial premiers, etc. all play far more significant roles in modern Canadian politics than the Queen. Similarly, Canada's role in NATO, NAFTA, the OCED, the G8, arguably the francophonie, and a host of other international organizations too numerous to mention are more significant than the Commonwealth. There is not enough room here to list all of them in the lead, and they are dealt with appropriately elsewhere in the text (which is already too long). Similarly, the use of Dominion to refer to Canada is also antiquated and needs to be recognized as such. A brief mention in the Etymology section (also too long) should be sufficient here. Including any of these in the lead of the article puts an undue weight on monarchy that can only be characterized as reflecting a monarchist POV. It will ruin the article of this tendentious editing continues. --Soulscanner 06:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the notion in the intro of the Queen being Canada's head of state predated my edits to the article. I am rather indifferent to including it, and also suggested a rephrase (only to correct after possible redundancy in the next sentence), but reckoning her as symbolic is incorrect. Case in point: Parliament is composed of three crucial elements: the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Sovereign. To corroborate this, I've provided a direct link to a government publication indicating that she is the head of state (e.g., by way of the Governor General) -- conversely, opposing viewpoints have only been argumentative ... so good luck in disproving that. Moreover, the notation that Canada was founded as a federal dominion is completely correct (and arguably current; see Canada's name), which you seem to solely oppose. Do you wish for me to cite reliably, again from the Canadian government? Do you also think it imbalanced to note Canada as a federal constitutional monarchy? I can just as well argue that you are placing undue weight on 'republican' notions in an attempt to push that particular viewpoint. So, before trying to push your own POV regarding this through tendentious editing (which, I might add, was precipitated through your vote for which a consensus has not yet materialized), cite and compel. Corticopia 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see link in article on Constitutional Monarchy in Canada indicating that the Constitution Act of 1981 clearly establishes that the Canadian people, and not the Monarch, hold "sovereignty over this country's institutions and constituion". A Sovereign without Sovereignty is only symbolic, and has no legal power under the new Canadian constitution. --Soulscanner 07:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps true (though I can't comment specifically on your sovereign/ty position), but it and the reference provided also doesn't cancel out others. Let's ask a different question: who do you maintain is Canada's head of state? Corticopia 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Queen is the Head of State. Is this title symbolic, or does she exercise real power or sovereignty like a U.S. President? (Please see following link for answer: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/senate//Monarchy/SenMonarchy_15-e.htm) --Soulscanner 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The two concepts of sovereignty and 'real power' (meaning power to govern?) are distinct, and the implied comparison inappropriate. The Queen is the Head of State, the title is not symbolic, but the powers are primarily symbolic (and exercised or not exercised through delegation / tradition). Many countries have heads of state with only symbolic powers (most of Western Europe, with the key exception of France, is composed of parliamentary democracies where heads of state - be they Kings, Queens, elected Presidents or Grand Dukes - have extremely limited powers to govern). The head of government and head of state need not coincide (as in the U.S.). At any rate, saying Canada is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy are both accurate and well-known concepts that are discussed later and in separate articles; this level of detail is not needed in the intro.

The document cited about sovereignty of the Canadian people does not really settle anything - that's a thorny question of whether the Queen is sovereign or embodies/represents the inherent sovereignty. Significantly, the document you cite actually says "reaffirmed" the sovereignty of the Canadian people (I will edit to reflect this), implying that there was actually no change in sovereignty.

I believe it as the Statute of Westminster that established it. The differnce between affirm and reaffim is unclear to me. The lead does not refer to the Statute of Westminster 1931 so affirm seems appropriate. --Soulscanner 08:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that this is propaganda - more significant is the phrase "amending powers previously reserved to the British parliament". Wouldn't it be more important in this paragraph to state that the Canada Act of 1982 removed "the remaining powers of the British parliament with respect to Canada"?--Gregalton 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the reference says, even if it is propaganda. Here are facts: the current Queen has never exercised any political power other than ribbon cutting and signing where Canadian government officials have told her to. If she did, she would be turfed as Queen of Canada (whatever powers that confers). Anyways, my main point is that it IS a contentious issue, which is why references to the Monarchy should be kept to a minimum in the lead. Referring to Queen Elizabeth and not to Prime Minister Harper seems somewhat disproportionate, especially in an article that is already too long. It's also redundandant becasue both are listed and identified in the template. It's confusing without a long aside about the difference between "Head of State" and "Head of Government". --Soulscanner 08:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference between affirm and reaffirm seems reasonably clear, and was likely specifically chosen to avoid any implication that the previous situation was different; affirm could be interpreted as no different than "stated" and would be ambiguous in this regard.

I'm unclear what you're referring to when you say it's not what the reference says; I'm not disputing the reference but which part of it is more meaningful and worthy of inclusion. What is more important (IMHO) than the 'sovereignty in the people' language is that the last ties with the British parliament were cut. This is a clear change and concrete difference - the U.K. government no longer having any (even indirect) power.

What is the contentious issue you refer to? The lead does not say that the Queen is Good and rules by the Grace of God over her Dominions, including her subjects in Canada, French and English, ad infinitum but rather that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, QEII is head of state. These are both indisputable facts, significant and worthy of inclusion, and phrased concisely using standard terminology. I would agree that a phrase to the effect "Prime Minister Harper is Head of Government and cabinet exercises substantially all executive power" would also be worthy of inclusion. In contrast, at least some of what you're noting as facts are hypothetical.

I don't agree at all that head of government/head of state distinction is confusing or requires a long aside. The distinction between Head of Government of Head of State is bog-standard and covered well both in WP and standard texts; my computer's built-in dictionary has a definition of head of state and refers to head of government (granted, it's a poorly-written definition, but it's there). Some countries combine the head of state and head of government, but that doesn't mean the distinction is unusual.--Gregalton 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

France lost

France lost the 7 yrs war. Saying "as a result of" conveys less information - (it could have been a trade "as a result" of a draw. "As a result of" is a "passive" expression that says less. It is frustrating being ignored while you 2 battle. Both of you have reverted this article more than 3x in 24 hours - and the provinces do need to come much sooner in the article --JimWae 07:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1) France ceded New France to Britain in 1763. That is what is important for Canada. You can say it was becasue they lost a battle, because France wanted to hold onto Guadeloupe. It is largely immaterial in the long run to Canada. What is important is vestiges of the colonial legacy in Canadian government. 2) I think it's important to remove antiquated monarchist bias from the lead; we need to be careful not to give the impression that the monarchy is anymore than symbolic Canada; 3) Similarly, I agree that the provinces should come sooner (where it was before), but the Wiki countries project suggests that it come after Politics. That's a strong arguement. I think we need to reach a greater consensus on this before deviating from this format. --Soulscanner 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Louisiana went to Spain - briefly

This is plainly wrong:

France ceded nearly all of New France to Britain in 1763 after the Seven Years War.

Louisiana, ceded to Spain, was part of New France, and quite large - perhaps larger than that part ceded to Britain. Yes, there were several administrative districts in New France - but the sentence is still quite wrong. --JimWae 15:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"At its peak in 1712 (before the Treaty of Utrecht), the territory of New France extended from Newfoundland to Lake Superior and from the Hudson Bay to the Gulf of Mexico. The territory was then divided in five colonies, each with its own administration: Canada, Acadia, Hudson Bay, Newfoundland and Louisiana." - from New France intro --JimWae 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the former

Inhabited first by aboriginal peoples, Canada was founded as a union of British colonies (some of which were formerly French colonies).

is quite sufficient. It is a mistake to assume that there needs to be much more detail than that in the lede. It is also a mistake to think people's main interest in Canada would be in its history. People unfamiliar with Canada are much more likely to want to know what Canada is like now --JimWae 03:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with JimWae here; that's the wording that was in the April 3rd version that I alluded to above. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Succinct, but vague -- I prefer slightly more detail. Corticopia

That's why we have the whole history section. The lead is not the place for detail. -- Jeff3000 02:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

... which may be a tad lengthy already. The intro is precisely the place for just enough context so a visitor can garner a better understanding of the topic while incite more research; the prior lead is vague, skipping over millennia, and the current one (edited) provides just a tad more detail while still being summative -- c.f. Australia. Corticopia 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The amount of context needed is very subjective; I don't think the Seven Years' war is necessary in the lead, and currently three editors believe that there is too much detail in the lead. -- Jeff3000 02:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, the 7 Yrs' War is a pivotal moment in Canadian history, with long-lasting political and cultural ramifications (e.g., ultimately yielding federal dominion, bilingualism). These are already touched upon in the intro, and to not provide just slightly more context does everyone a disservice. And I can't comment on what other editors feel is excessive -- after all, it's subjective. Corticopia 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That the Seven Years' War is a pivotal moment is also subjective, and that's why there must be consensus. Currently more editors believe that a more succinct version is needed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And, thus, I've removed the link to the war while retaining the rest of the sentence. If necessary, I will cite. Really, maybe editors should pay more attention, say, to the bloated history section. Corticopia 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the topic. I also believe the history section is bloated, but that has nothing to do with the current disagreement on the level of detail in the lead. Citing references will not change what is basically a style issue. Wikipedia works by consensus. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not changing the topic -- it's part-and parcel. In any event, you did not read my comment above before your raw revert, and no clear consensus appears to exist currently (to me), so perhaps you should garner or re-affirm a consensus before reverting what amounts to a single sentence again. Corticopia 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. The level of detail in the lead is independent of the detail in the section, which is a subsection of the History of Canada article which should have the most amount of detail. You are single-handedly going against the opinions of three other editors; what's wrong with waiting? -- Jeff3000 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not single-handedly doing anything. JimWae alluded to the inaccuracy of the former statement regarding New France; my edit somewhat corrects for that (through piped link). I'm also rather surprised of the addition of 'Dominion of Canada' to the lead, despite Ss's expressed resistance to undue monarchist sentiments in the lead and despite prior challenges with that statement. And there's also no harm in you waiting either -- besides, a day has passed before I opted to weigh in here again, while you essentially straightaway reverted when I edited. Whatever ... Corticopia 03:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted right away because your edit seemed to go against the the comments of three other editors (JimWea, SoulScanner and myself) who had commented in the past couple days. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Seemed? Well, you can dress up raw reversions all you want, but don't invoke consensus building when you revert before commenting and amidst ongoing discussions. And, really, reversion of 18 characters seems, well, petty. Corticopia 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've commented here before and in between the reversions. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't obfuscate: the above thread/article history demonstrates your timing is somewhat skewed -- your reversions are reactionary (the second reversion without reading comment), and may hark of ownership issues with this article. Anyhow, I'll be back later. Corticopia 03:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. As for the statements of ownership, I believe you are completely misrepresenting me. I disagree with a lot of things that happened to this article recently; for example when the provinces section was moved up, I posted my comments on the talk page, but when no one responded I took that as a sign that there was no consensus to moving it back down, and didn't touch the article. (I wasn't the one to bring it back down) I did the same with the second lead paragraph, and only when others took much the same stance did I touch the article. You can look through this talk page and I've done the same with Inuktitut and the Muslim explorers. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume nothing. I have also contributed to the article now and then, and have had to fight tooth-and-nail for relatively minor points (see 'northern North America' above). Based on the above, you seem intent on maintaining or restoring the prior status quo, when suggested edits may be intended as enhancements. When all else fails, ignore all rules. And I'm more focused on this issue: I still fail to see why the net change of 18 characters, which I think provide necessary context, is so objectionable. Corticopia 03:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. And the addition of 18 characters is objectionable to me because I and others think (based on above comments over the past couple days) there is already enough detail in the lead. I have already said this, and you have already said that you believe there needs to be more context. I think we understand where we disagree, and there is no need to rehash our opinions. Let's see what others say, and then go with the general consensus. Here are the different versions:

Current version:

The lands have been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast. France ceded nearly all of New France in 1763 after the Seven Years War. In 1867, Confederation united four British North American colonies to form the Dominion of Canada. A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, reaffirming the sovereignty of the Canadian people over their institutions and constitution.

Corticopia's version:

The lands have been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast. In 1763, France ceded most of its North American colonies and Britain emerged as the dominant colonial power. In 1867, Confederation united four British North American colonies to form the Dominion of Canada. A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, reaffirming the sovereignty of the Canadian people over their institutions and constitution.

June 2nd version:

Inhabited first by aboriginal peoples, Canada was founded in 1867 as a union of British North American colonies. It gained independence from the United Kingdom in an incremental process that ended in 1982. It remains a Commonwealth Realm with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state.

April 3rd version:

Inhabited first by aboriginal peoples, Canada was founded as a union of British colonies (some of which were formerly French colonies). Canada gained independence from the United Kingdom in an incremental process that began in 1867 and ended in 1982; it remains a Commonwealth Realm.

Regards, -- Jeff3000

Dominion of Canada in lede

Yes, I do have a problem with:

In 1867, Confederation united four British North American colonies to form the Dominion of Canada.

The 1867 Constituion never refers to Canada as being so named, nor is such the current name of the country. Capitalizing "dominion" indicates it is not being used to be descriptive but rather something else. This is unnecessarily contentious for the lede, where long explanations are inappropriate. Better to defer "dominion" for the main body - where it can be explained somewhat --JimWae 07:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OK are: union, federation, confederation (all lowercase) OK are: BNA colonies, or British colonies --JimWae 07:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable points, Dominion is both conentious and discussed in appropriate detail elsewhere. I have edited to the following: "In 1867, Canada was formed by Confederation of four British North American colonies. A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the remaining vestiges of dependence on the British parliament." I've also edited the second sentence, as the cutting of ties to the British parliament seems far more significant and concrete to me than "reaffirming the sovereignty ...". Comments/reactions both welcome and, I imagine, inevitable.--Gregalton 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dominion is NOT the same a "dominion"

Dominion is NOT the same as dominion. Will those who insist on using the lower case version (i.e., dominion) please get that straight.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not write "the USA is a Republic", nor that "Spain is a Kingdom". We also do not write "the Republic of the United States" --JimWae 05:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word Dominion in the Canada Act 1982

The word Dominion (i.e., Dominion Status) is used in the Canada Act 1982 contrary to ill-informed opinion of the unknown posted below,

An Unknown Poster wrote this,

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html NOTE THAT THIS IS A LINK TO THE 1867 CONSTITUTION. The 1982 constitution is at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Const/annex_e.html#II and DOES NOT use the word dominion. Section 53 specifically notes the name change. "(1) The enactments referred to in Column I of the schedule are hereby repealed or amended to the extent indicated in Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall continue as law in Canada under the names set out in Column III thereof. Consequential amendments (2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act 1982, that refers to an enactment referred to in the schedule by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in the schedule may be cited as the Constitution Act followed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment."

Note:

Dominion is NOT the same as dominion. Will those who insist on using the lower case version (i.e., dominion) please get that straight.

To re-cap yet again ... sigh,

Canada Act 1982

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/Canada_Act_1982.html

The essence of the Canada Act 1982 was two-fold,

(i). to consolidate all the previous British North America Act(s), re-name them as Constitution Act(s), and add an AMENDING FORMULA to the Canadian Constitution (which was previously absent),

(ii). to add a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So when someone says the following,

"The Constitution Act of 1982 does not even contain the word "Dominion"."

this is patently FALSE. As per Part (i). of the Canada Act 1982, the Constitution Act 1982 DOES CONTAIN the word Dominion.

I. PRELIMINARY.

1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867.(2)

2. Repealed(3)

II. UNION. 3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)

Upon inspection of Clause 3 of the Constitution Act 1867, which is consolidated into the Constitution Act 1982, which forms the first part of the Canada Act 1982, the explicit phrase(s),

One Dominion under the Name of Canada

One Dominion under that Name

define Canada with the FEUDAL RANK of a Dominion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note: Armchair has been flogging this debate for ages now. There is no need to engage him in debate. Just ignore him. When he decides to accord other Wikipedia editors respect and to start paying attention to Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and original research, then it may be worth responding to him, but otherwise, it is really just like feeding a troll. Ground Zero | t 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that GroundZero, whilst being an Administrator, shows personal-bias in this debate.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I do, hope, Don, that you recognize the irony of you appealing for sympathy from the group you call "an ignorant mob". I have no idea why you think that I have a personal bias against you. My opinoin of you is formed only by the way in which you behave here at Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

GroundZero, I never realised how tiresome that you can be.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

More lead changes

Icedevil has changed the lead putting political descriptions in the first paragraph. The old lead which had geographical descriptions in the first paragraph and political descriptions in the third paragraph had a strong consensus. I believe it should go back to that format. Any thoughts, Regards -- Jeff3000 13:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I support Jeff's proposal to restore the geographic-based consensus on the lead. The political situation is to complext to describe in one line. Ground Zero | t 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Political situation is too complex for the opening line. By the way, Icedevil seems to be either changing the first sentence of United States to 'country' or the Canada one to 'federal constitutional monarchy'. CloudNine 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support 'federal constitutional monarchy' is too succint & overlooks mention of parliament. I do think the 1st paragraph suffers a little from "simple-sentence-itis", but my proposed change was rejected with the comment the simple-sentence way was "stronger" - what style guide includes that? --JimWae 02:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 02:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Need to fix the first sentence

The first sentence should be fixed as the following: Canada is a federal constitutional monarchy occupying most of northern North America. The country extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean, sharing land borders with the United States to the northwest and south.

This is a more descriptive and accurate sentence than "Canada is a country occupying most of northen North America". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icedevil14 (talk • contribs).

Please see the previous section. The consensus is to keep the first sentence as is. CloudNine 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous section is way on top and no one would see the latest post. So I decided to make a new section. And I dont really see why the first sentence isn't fixed. The first sentence really looks dull and doesn't seem very descriptive. "X is a country occupying most of North America" seems very blatant.

Using the word "country" results in a more poorly written article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icedevil14 (talk • contribs).

A federal constitutional monarchy is a type of organization for a country. Canada is first and foremost a country, not the way the country is organized. -- Jeff3000 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that federal constitutional monarchy should not be so prominent, but the first sentence does lack "punch." I would suggest the following (and grateful comments):

"Canada is the second-largest country in the world by total area, and occupies most of northern North America. Extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean, Canada shares land borders with the United States to the northwest and south."--Gregalton 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That really does put some taste into the sentence. (Icedevil14 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

The lead sentence is fine as is. Consensus indicates the status quo is fine (four supports in the previous section indicate this). The article was promoted to featured status with the same sentence, and I'm sure people would have noted if it lacked "punch". CloudNine 18:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead doesn't lack punch, but the reordering suggested above does seem to add a bit more punch, and I don't see a problem with it. Lexicon (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'd be happy with Gregalton's lead (it's essentially a rephrasing of certain facts in the lead). It's just a bit tiresome trying to convince editors that 'country' is fine, and it doesn't need changing to federal constitutional monarchy. CloudNine 19:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it as well, although I've tweaked it very slightly as follows:

"Canada is the second-largest country in the world by total area. Occupying most of northern North America, it extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. Canada shares land borders with the United States to the northwest and south."

I've split the first sentence and combined the back end with the second sentence to keep similar thoughts together. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Lexicon (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Borders

Since Greenland is officially a territory of Denmark, does it mean Canada also has a border with Denmark. Or, if Greenland is INDEPENDENT, does that mean we border Greenland? In other words, does it mean we have borders with another country besides the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.7.43 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but maritime borders, not land borders. Canada also shares maritime borders with France (through Saint Pierre and Miquelon). Lexicon (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just asking, since we are on the subject of borders: can Canada be said to share a maritime border with Russia across the Arctic Ocean (regardless of the fact that they both claim sovereignty all the way to the North Pole)?--Ramdrake 13:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so. 200 nautical miles is the limit in international law, and I don't think there's any overlap between Canadian and Russian maritime territory. Lexicon (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

First sentence (2)

Putting the geographical information of Canada, as being the 2nd largest country, BY TOTAL AREA in the first sentence doesn't seem right. The article needs to start off smooth.

"Canada is the second largest country in the world by total area." needs to be changed.

Preceding comment by User:Icedevil14

---

"Smooth"ness is a subjective evaluation. You replaced it with:

Canada is a country occupying most of northern North America. It is the world's second largest country by total area and extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean.[1] Canada shares land borders with the United States to the northwest and south.

My comments:

1. first sentence too simple
2. second sentence redundantly uses "country" again, and uses "and" twice without punctuation. It does however remove unneeded east & west
3. to many Canadians, Alaska is west, not northwest. To some it is even southwest
4. the US being south should be first to eliminuate confusion

• --JimWae 17:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1st paragraph - 2 sentences only:

Canada, occupying most of northern North America, is the world's second largest country by total area. Extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean, it borders the United States to the south.--JimWae 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, way too many commas. -Another unsigned comment by User:Icedevil14

Better than not using them when you need to - and using too many "and"s. Please cite a style rule that downgrades use of commas. --JimWae 03:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC) While you are it, please also cite style rules that advocate using ultra-simple sentences, and 2 "and"s in a sentence with no punctuation, and redundant use of the same word --JimWae 03:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm struggling to see what the problems with the lead sentence are. The comment about the number of commas is a little silly; three commas is not "way too many." CloudNine 08:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is another contribution from our unsigned "nope"r

• diff --JimWae 09:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• User_talk:Icedevil14 is also worth a look --JimWae 09:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I've restored the version from earlier as it is stronger and better received. BTW, the above links are definitely worth checking out before we mess with the lead. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm fine either way personally; I don't see why the lead sentence needs to be changed every five minutes. I'm aware User:Icedevil14 is a troublesome editor; he's on his last warning before a more serious block after a lot of petty vandalism and personal attacks on other editors. CloudNine 11:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just pathedic. This shows how bad you can make this article compared to other articles. The USA doesn't even mention how large the country is until the 2nd paragraph, and here we have it stating the very first sentence. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedevil14 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Use ~~~~ after commenting. I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith on your behalf. CloudNine 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking this article is soon going to lose its status as featured, just because of this first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedevil14 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

---

There are still some issues with the first paragraph:

1. if someone cannot find the Atlantic & Pacific oceans on a map or globe, the usage of east & west is not only superfluous, but becomes an obstruction to sentence comprehension
2. As I said just above, Alaska is NOT clearly Northwest - and mentioning NW first is likely to produce even more confusion. The major border which will help people locate Canada on a map or globe is Canada's southern border - which is clearly in that direction

- I still do not see what makes 3 sentences "stronger" than 2 sentences, though I have lost the ability to care about that much anymore --JimWae 15:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

- I again ask for a style guide citation that would tell us how "stronger" is relevant here, or begin to explicate its meaning (other than active voice, perhaps) --JimWae 05:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion here; I think what is meant is Alaska borders the northwestern portion of Canada instead of Alaska is northwest of (all) of Canada. After all, there's no reason to say that the contiguous United States has southern and eastern borders with Canada (Michigan/Ontario etc.). One is a micro view of the country, whereas the other is a macro view of the country, describing borders with respect to the whole. Given that, I think we need to keep the lede compact - a map can better convey this information anyway. Mindmatrix 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we explain details of where Alaska is, I am saying we do not need to mention that border at all in the lede. Alaska is directly west (and slightly SW & slightly NW) of the geographic center of Canada. At the very least "south" needs to come first --JimWae 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving location of province section (2)

Talk:Canada#Location_of_province_section To summarize the argument here, it seems that the main argument against moving the provinces and territories section to the second section is that it goes against the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates.

It seems that one of the first things one should know about Canada is that it consists of 10 provinces and 3 territories. This allows for a better understanding of

• the History section, which describes how these provinces became Canadian
• the Goverenment section, which explains that Canada is a federation.

The locator map of the provinces helps to place the provinces. More importantly, the description of transfer payments and the division of powers explains why provinces are much more powerful in Canada than, say, departments in France or even "countries" like Scotland and Wales. I think that for large decentralized federations such as Canada, India, and the U.S. it makes sense to describe the political subdivisions and their political status, particularly if these divisions show up on World maps and if it greatly aids in understanding both the history and governments of these countries (which it undeniably does in Canada). I think that this is a flaw with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates, which is after all only a suggestion, not a prescription.--Soulscanner 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Move Provinces and Territories section to section 2 --Soulscanner 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Move For reasons stated above. Unless someone can provide a more compelling rationale for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates; I think moving the section will make a better article. Perhaps we need to argue on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates that a different template be used for large federations whose subdivisions generally appear on global maps, or that the template be changed. --Soulscanner 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Move Definitely. As above - and the place names need a context (size & location) to make sense in the other sections --JimWae 04:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • the context for "why they are provinces" can still be given after it is made clear that they are provinces. As the article stands, the reader who does not already know what all the place names mean, has no hint what Yukon, Ontario & Newfoundland refer to when first encountered in article - cannot even tell if they are small settlements or large regions or provinces or islands --JimWae 07:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not Move The history and the development of the country should be the before the section on provinces as it gives the context to understand why there are provinces and territories. -- Jeff3000 06:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This does not make sense to me. Before you understand why provinces exist, you need to know what they are, where they are, and, in the case of Canada, their political significance. Then you can better understand the historical development. For example, before understanding the significance of B.C. and P.E.I joining confederation, it helps to know that B.C. is located on the Pacific and P.E.I. on the Atlantic. Before discussing, for example, the settlement of the West, you need to know where Western Canada is. You need a rudimentary knowledge of Canada's political geography if you are to understand its territorial and political development. --Soulscanner 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not Move per Jeff3000. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 08:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Remains" and "maintains"

Why does Canada remain a constitutional monarchy, yet maintains a parliamentary democracy? Why not simply is in both cases? Knowing how contentious things get in here, I thought I'd flag this before being bold and changing it. fishhead64 06:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the intent was to make a contrast with the last sentence of the previous paragraph. Perhaps another word than "maintains" is what we need, though it is not all that inappropriate. "Is" is too plain & does not serve notice that "severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament" does not extend to not having a monarch --JimWae 07:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a rather fine point, don't you think? Canada is a constitutional monarchy in its own right. Much as we inherited the crown from Britain, we inherited our parliamentary democracy from it, as well, after all. fishhead64 05:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)