Talk:Canada/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Money bills

how were the bills in canada made?Were they made from richest to poorest? Just wanna know Blinx283 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinx283 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The country name

The language of Canada is both French and English.

The name of the country is in both French and English. It is also pronounced differently in both French and English; so why is the name not listed in the article in both French and English? --Antiedman 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC), punctuation clarified by Grantsky 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The name of Canada in french is Canada, the pronounciation only differs due to the accents of the speaker and since this is the english version of wikipedia i dont see why one would consider including info in another language(Hulkamania14 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The long-form name in English, Dominion of Canada,

The long-form name in French, Dominion du Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Table: Temperatures of Canadian Cities

There is something wrong with the sortable wikitable. This table shows Vancouver has the coldest winter, but it's the only one with positive degree celsius. It doesn't know the difference between positive and negative. Does anyone know how to fix this? DWMD w 18:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. I just added + and 0 infront of the number to make it work. DWMD w 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge territory footnote

I have removed this footnote, since it is completely misleading. The land that the Vimy Ridge memorial in France is on was donated to Canada, but that doesn't mean that is is sovereign Canadian territory. It is no different from if the government of Canada bought a house in South Africa. It is French land owned by the Canadian government, but is completely a part of France. Lexicon (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is sovereign Canadian territory, the Canadian government acknowledges that. R-41 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Lexicon (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is directly taken from the Veteran Affairs Canada site:

"It is sometimes suggested that this land is part of Canada. This is not strictly correct. In 1922, the French Government granted "freely, and for all time, to the Government of Canada the free use of the land exempt from all taxes". Unlike an embassy, it is subject to the laws of France and the French police are responsible for law and order."

That should settle it. I have added this to Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada. -- Reaper X 07:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Canada's political parties

I have changed Canada's political party list, under the Politics and Government section, to indicate that Canada has "two major" political parties (the Liberals and the Tories) and two third parties (the NDP and the Bloc). I have also indicated that there are many minor parties, such as the Greens. I think that this is wholly accurate. Canada is a two-party state. Only the Liberals and the Tories can form government. We must stop treating the NDP and the Bloc as if they are viable contenders for the PMO. Nopm 13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Canada is not a two-party system. From that article "A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate the voting in nearly all elections. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by the two major parties.".

Not only does the bloc and the NDP hold elected office (25% in the past election), which by itself would make Canada a multi-party system, but they hold significant power, both in the past and currently. In the past, the bloc was Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition from 1993 to 1997, and even now the government requires the help of either the bloc or the NDP supporting pass bills; this was the case just recently when the bloc helped pass the budget in 2007, and the NDP also helped the Liberals pass some bills in the previous minority government in exchange for some changes in those bills. Canada is far from being a two-party system. -- Jeff3000 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Canada currently has a minority government pretty much speaks for itself in negating any claim that Canada is a two party state, particularly when you compare it to real two-party states like the U.S. --Soulscanner 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Canada is a multi-party system and the lessers do hold some power but its the ruling party that holds the most power historically. So far there has never ever been a prime minister that was not from either the liberal or the conservative party in some form, and the lessers have always been just that, the lessers. People say the usa is a 2 party system but they have independents to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.214.115 (talk • contribs).

Does the fact that the NDP and other 'third' parties, like the Saskatchewan Party and the the Parti-Québécois, have held power on a provincial level not mean anything? Correct me if I'm wrong, but on a state level in the US there are still only Democratic or Republic governements. Thus, I think it is somewhat misleading to characterize Canada as a two-party system.

conservative now in charge- Soku Kitty 16:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As a political scientist I have to say that the correct term technically is that Canada is a 'two party plus' system. This means two major parties and a collection of minor parties with representation but unable to form governments. 128.189.135.87 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As both a Canadian and student of Canadian politics, I can confirm that Canada has a multi-party system. Parties such as the NDP or Greens are perfectly able to form a government as long as they receive more seats in the House of Commons following a General Election. Yes, we have only ever had Liberal or Conservative parties forming the government in the past, but there is no reason why others can't be voted in as the governing party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To call the Canadian system a multi-system for the reason that NDP or Bloc or who ever can form the government is ill conceived. If we were to judge a country's political system based on the ability of a third party to form the government, then that would result in the United States being considered a multi-party system. There is a Libertarian Party in the United States who CAN form the government, but the categorizing of their system is based on the likely-hood that the third party will form the government. In both cases it is highly unlikely. Canada is a two party system perpetuated because of a FPTP system which prefers a two-party system. Paulk 04 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Paulk_04

long list of navbars

I thought the point of this template was that we didn't need all those other ones at the bottom. Can the rest be removed? - TheMightyQuill 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead once again

The lead has been changed once again without any discussion. The previous version had a longstanding consensus. The current one, while better in some places, in my mind has too much detail, as well as sounding very staccato, especially the third paragraph. I think the third paragraph should go back to the way it was before, and the second paragraph should be shortened. -- Jeff3000 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Revert the lead. Please make note in comments that changes to the lead should first be discussed first as they represent a consensus. --Soulscanner 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the current introduction is far too verbose and convoluted. Corticopia 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made some changes - 3 colonies not 4, used piped link for New France instead of presuming reader already knows or will need to click on link, avoided awkward successive 2 "with"s in same sentence, fixed a spelling/typo error. Mentioning that Canada has grown by including the remaining BNA colonies has merit (US article, eg, is much more specific in lead on its expansion). The comments above were mostly made in reference to a much longer & rambling version of the lead than the one that was eventually completely reverted. The second paragraph HAD already been greatly shortened while still keeping some of the "better in some places". Complete reversion does not preserve that which is "better in some places" --JimWae 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "3 colonies" is TOO concise since 3 colonies united to form 4 provinces. So concise that for months the lede had been in error on the # of colonies -- an attempt to simplify created an error of oversimplification. --JimWae 19:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Main Page request

I want to try to get this on the Main Page for Canada Day 2008. It may be quite early to discuss this, but what the hell, gets our ducks lined up. We need to make a request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. The last time it was on the main page was June 23, 2006. What the significance of that day is unknown to me. But the blurb is archived, and it looks a little short to me. Thoughts? -- Reaper X 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear! I agree completely. --DotDarkCloud 11:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominion in the lead

The term dominion is now the fifth word in this article, as in "Canada is a federal dominion..." For most readers, this term is completely foreign and is confusing. The lead should be especially understandable to the general population, and a term that needs much further explanation should not be placed there. A dominion is a type of country, and I believe country should be used. The term commonwealth realm is better, but even that needs some explanation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's plenty fine. I'm sure the average anglophone reader knows Canada is a country. And if dominion is still confusing, it's wikilinked to the dominion article, which reads "...dominion is the term used to refer to a current or former territory of the shared Crown". That way they learn what dominion means eh? -- Reaper X 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I chose to put the word "dominion" rather than the word "country" because of the precedent set by the article on the United States, which uses the word "republic" rather than "country". However, the articles on France and Belgium use "country" rather than "republic" and "kingdom", so precedent could go either way. I say we keep it as "dominion", as it is more specific. However, if we change it to "country" I think that the term "dominion" should appear within the first few sentences; maybe we could add a sentence saying "The dominion was confederated from British North American colonies in 1867". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would go with the most commonly, easily understood term: country. If one looks at the history of Canada article, there is also uncertainty (in some circles) about whether dominion means an independent country (and you can see in the history here this question has been beaten to death before), and in fact the constitutional 'independence', because gradualist, is not unambiguous. I see no reason to work off the US article as an example in this instance.--Gregalton 19:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Canada is first and foremost a country. The type of government and status is a secondary issue. Given that word country would be repeated twice, I'll go back to the old lead that worked well. -- Jeff3000 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, no one knows what a Dominion is. It is an obscure, antiquated term no longer used in Canada (this is explained early on in the Entymology section) and of interest only to certain historians and nostalgic monarchists. If you want to look for comparable precedents, look at Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa (the other "Dominions"). They don't go by that moniker anymore either. --Soulscanner 10:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not describe Canada as a constitutional monarchy? That's what it is (along with the 15 other commonwealth nations with EII2 as 'Head of State'). GoodDay 21:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A constitutional monarchy is a type of government. Canada's government is organized as a constitutional monarchy, but it itself is a country. Regardless, constitutional monarchy is already linked in the third lead paragraph which talks abouts Canada's organization. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's good enough for me. GoodDay 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Jeff, now that you've provided a good arguement and changed it, can you work in the fact that it's part of the commonwealth realm? That was the original reason I wanted to leave dominion in, and I think it deserves mention in the lead. -- Reaper X 21:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

done, -- Jeff3000 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevjumba has reverted the page twice. I'm not going to get into a revert war, but I still believe that having constitutional monarchy is not the appropriate term for the first sentence as it is a type of government, and Canada is not a type of government. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of User:Kevjumba's objection seems to be that "federal country" is redundant; why not just say that Canada is a federation? - Eron ^Talk 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem with "federation" as I do with "constitutional monarchy". Both are systems that Canada uses, they are not definitions of what Canada is. Both "federal" and "constitutionally monarchical" are usable as adjectives, but the only words usable as nouns to describe Canada in the lead are "dominion" or "country". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Which leads to the original argument here; which term should be used? I think that it's good consensus here that "country" should be used until further notice. Enough with these tangents. -- Reaper X 21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph should simply call Canada a country. The sundry aspects of its governance and political structure are too much to get into for the purposes of a paragraph on its most basic geography (location, bounds and exceptional size), and if we start making exceptions for what this editor and that editor think are the outstanding aspect of its governance and political structure (or its society, its languages, its economy, or whatever), we'll end up with a hodge-podge string of descriptors and an endless debate over which ones to put "in the front window". Better to just call it a country at first, and explain (in brief) its governance and political structure in an organized way and in one place, further down in the lead.
-- Lonewolf BC 16:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. We should use Canada is a country as a common ground for this problem. Watchdogb 00:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think that, at least, is something everyone can agree on. (Okay, maybe not everyone.) - Eron ^Talk 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I beleive that the word country is very generic, inclusive and is then somewhat empty. Eveyone knows that Canada is a country. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that even University students are quoting and therefore the wording has to be carefully selected to be accurate enough to carry the meaning. In this cas Dominion is the word used in the Constitution documents, even the one that were transfered to Ottawa. But, Canada is also a certain type of federation. In this first part, it should also be mentioned that Canada is part of the British Commonwealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada itself does not use terms like Kingdom or Republic in it's official name as do other countries. Canada is a "confederation" by it's own deffinition with a parlimentary/constitutional monarchy type of governemnt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.148.53.200 (talk) 20:56, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

To the anon: Canada is not a confederation, it is a federation. The term "confederation" as used to refer to the creation of Canada means something like "the process of federating". Lexicon (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Dominion of Canada" in lead

Canada should be referred to as the "Dominion of Canada" in the lead. Both the 1867 and 1871 constitutional acts legally establish "Dominion of Canada" as the country's official name (more so the 1871 act). Furthermore there has never been any law repealing the official status of the name "Dominion of Canada." I have here two links from official Canadian government websites that state that even to this day "Dominion of Canada" is the country's legal name: http://www.pch.gc.ca/special/flag-drapeau/defi-challenge/reponses-answers_e.cfm http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/special/royalvisit/royal-quiz-answers.htm -Mike K. IC79 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, the term "Dominion" has fallen into total disuse.Grantsky 19:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead-edit of 15 August 2007

My apologies for hastily reverting the initial reversion of this. On second thoughts, I was going to self-revert back to the older version, in accord with "Bold-Revert-Discuss", but Greg beat me to it.
That said, a vague statement such as "that's not an improvement" is an inadequate justification for making a total revert. If there are specific objections to the edit, those can and should be discussed. Then the worths of the older version can then be weighed against those of the put-forward revision, and the passage can be revised or refined accordingly, not necessarily ending in either the present or the proposed form, exactly. But specific criticisms are needed, else there is no basis for a meaningful discussion.
So far there's been one specific criticism, which is Greg's observation of the "sentence error" in "'The federation is consists of...'". Okay, I grant that it should be "...federation consists of..." (no "is"), but that was a mere oversight in proofreading, and the mend for it could hardly be easier. That's not a sound reason to revert a whole edit. So, what are the perceived flaws in the proposed edit?
The thinking behind the edit is as follows: The first thing anyone needs to know about Canada (or any country) is its general location in the world, and its extents. In the specific case of Canada, its distinction as the world's second-biggest country is worth next-mention, but that's only a sort of "bragging right" which is a mere function of the national boundaries -- not only those of Canada, itself, but those of the world's other countries. So it is not a primary or essential fact about Canada. Thus it ought go after the description of the country's location and bounds, rather than leading off the article. Canada's federal character is an aspect of its governance and its political structure, so it ought be covered in the paragraph that covers the rest of that topic. I therefore moved all that stuff to the third paragraph. Those were the only sizeable changes made by the edit. The rest of it was some quite trivial changes within the third paragraph.
I suggest that we begin by discussing the "federal" bit, which has migrated into the mostly-geographic first paragraph only so lately. I submit that it does not belong there, for the reasons already given. Moreover, although federalism is a characteristic of Canada now, and seems likely to carry on being so for foreseeable future, it is no more essential a characteristic than, say, bilingualism or parliamentary democracy. To put that another way, if for some reason the country adopted a more centralised form of government, it would yet be Canada. So "federal" does not deserve some special first-sentence of first-paragraph mention, but should simply go into the rest of the lead's precis on Canada's governance, which is presently in the third paragraph. -- Lonewolf BC 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and open mind, and bringing it to the talk page. As you will probably be able to see from the talk page and archives, the lead is the result of many, many word by word edits. It's a trench war, and there is a lot of sniping from occasional vandals. So larger changes to this article - which seems to attract a lot of close attention - tend to get reverted unless it's a clear improvement. Therefore, I'd suggest incremental changes in the lead, unless of course starting over is absolutely necessary - i.e. you think we need to start over (but you'll get some push back).

As for the specifics of your comments: I also think the federal is out of place in the first sentence, not so much for longer reasons - it just sounds ugly. Replacing country with dominion, for example, has been tried, and rejected, as have numerous other variants because country is easy to understand. So by all means, let's see if federal / federalism can be moved down.

And when editing this lead, grammar and even typos count...see the point above.--Gregalton 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that an incremental approach is needed, and I was actually trying for that. An omnibus rewrite, holding many changes, is likely to get shot down because even if most other folk approve of each particular change, most of them are likely also to disagree with at least something, so a wholesale revert is liable to fly (despite that the making of such reverts is generally a bad practice, I think).
(As for grammar and typos, yes of course they "count", and I can see wholesale-reverting an edit where the writing is just bad on the whole, or the typos are so thick that it is unfair to leave their mending to someone else. On the other hand, one of the great advantages of collaborative editing is that a different person can often spot an error-of-oversight that the original writer reads right over despite proofreading with all due care -- the author, knowing what he meant to write, truly does not see the extra word, spelling mistake, or whatever, that he did not mean to write.)
Anyway, let's begin with the "federal case". ;-)
-- Lonewolf BC 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the federalism point at the beginning of the 1st paragraph is out of place. How about we go back to the version that had the second-largest country by area (which had a nice boundary between geography, history, organization) and then start improving it from there. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Meaning no offence, Jeff, but I think that reverting as you suggest would be a bad idea. I strongly suggest that we take one issue at a time, discuss it thoroughly, leave plenty of time (a week or so) for anyone concerned to comment, prolong the moot further if new views keep trickling in that seem liable tip the outcome, and then act on the consensus so reached. Then we'll have a secure consensus, reached through a certain, particular discussion. Although that consensus would not be inviolable, it and its originating discussion should be enough to convince any reasonable drop-in editor holding a different view that there is a consensus against that editor's view. So I think we should most definitely not revert to the size-before-location version. That would make for two things to talk about, and almost inevitably lead to a tangled discussion. We should settle the "federal" bit first. Then we can talk about how best to order the first paragraph. What stands now has as good a consensus as any version of this shifting lead. We should leave it be for the time being, and work from it to build a firmer consensus-version of the lead. I say this as one who thinks that the "federal" stuff should be moved, yet I'm willing to let it stand while we hash out whether or not it should be moved. -- Lonewolf BC 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lonewolf, as the person whose revert you took issue with, I'll again state that the changes did not improve the lead. (I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is what I feel - your work is appreciated, but in this case it required a revert.) Moreover, in the case of a featured article, it is important to make sure that all changes strengthen the text. As such, we should discuss your proposed changes first, and then go "live" with any agreed-upon tweaks. AS for the changes, here are one example (dealing with Canada's boundaries):

Original text: "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 south and northwest."

Your change: "Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is the country covering most of the northern half of North America. It is bounded on the east and west by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, respectively. To the north, it is bounded by the Arctic Ocean, into which it extends as large collection of islands. The United States of America bounds Canada to the south and, in the form of the state of Alaska, to the northwest."

The previous version is stronger, and more concise. There are similar issues with the third paragraph, as well as some errors that would require rewrites and cleanup. Again, given that this is a featured article, it is better to work out the details here first, and then change the lead. That helps to keep the article stable. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As you may notice from the above, I'm fine with discussion, and I think it must be carried out in a patient, methodical way so as to yield sure results. I do note that the lead has not been all that stable, so I don't see that I should be pilloried for touching it. Though I hesitate to cite policy-pages at other folk, I catch a whiff of "ownership" in your comments.
I'm also fine with "bluntness" -- not tip-toing around in critiquing an edit -- but I'm not keen on vagueness and, sorry to say, I find your critiques to be vague and subjective, and that is my objection to them. Obviously I disagree that the older text is "stronger", and if it is shorter, it is also less informative -- to its detriment, in my view. The balance between content and brevity is a matter of personal judgement, and "strength" lacks a definite meaning in this context. One might as well just say "better" as "stronger"; both express a preference, without explaining its reasons.
However, I don't wish to pursue these tangents. Let's settle the issues one at a time, patiently and methodically, through discussion. Let "federal-in-first-paragraph" be first up.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like direct comments, here are some (comparing the two texts):

1. Covering most of northern half of north america: ambiguous, implies Canada occupies ~25%-49% (one-half of one-half?). Most of northern north america is closer to accurate. Also less wordy.
2. Bounded on east and west by atlantic/pacific, north by arctic: redundant to almost any reader with knowledge of the Northern hemisphere. Original text used this as a stylistic frame, not a geographical one. Bounded is a strange image.
3. Respectively: redundant when facts are clear; best used only when correspondence (pacific / west, etc) is not clear or there is a longer list.
4. "into which it extends as a large collection of islands": wordy, islands detail unnecessary here (and invites unneeded comparison about prevalence of islands on all the coasts: what about Newfoundland? Vancouver Island? Cape Breton Island?). Not sure the 'bounding' phrasing above works for a peninsula / groups of islands.
5. "Bounds Canada": implies physical restraint, inappropriate here. Repeats bounding.
6. "in the form of the State of Alaska": unnecessary verbiage, article does not need mention of Alaska here. If Alaska is required, borders Alaska would be sufficient.

So, I hope this doesn't sound overly harsh, but I agree with ckatz: previous version was stronger, better.--Gregalton 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, Greg, and no, it does not "sound overly harsh". Didn't I say I don't mind straightforwardness in critiques? I disagree with what you say there, by and large, but please let us leave aside these quibbles about writing style, for the time being, and finish deciding whether or not the "federal" stuff ought go in the first paragraph. -- Lonewolf BC 22:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Federal" in the first paragraph? (discussion moved down the page)

(Moved to below.)

Request for comment: Is the Governor General's residence an official residence of the monarch?

Editors of this article may wish to comment on the edits being made at Official residence, advancing the unusual view that the official residence of the Governor General of Canada, and those of her equivalents in other jurisdictions, are "royal" residences (i.e. official residences of the monarch), and that this aspect (assuming for the moment that it exists) deserves mention in a list of official residences, alongside "vice-regal", the somewhat opaque term being substituted for "Governor General" and the like, by the royalising editor.
(For your further information, the "royal" issue began in the "Canada" entry. Afterward, the same editor spread it to the entries on a number of other countries. He did so in conjunction with his "general cleanup" of the article. The "cleanup" is also making the article worse in some other ways, in my opinion. You might wish to look at that, too, but those are separate, or at most indirectly related issues. I would not bother mentioning these tangentials, here, but in the cases where I have left them out, the royalising editor has placed a follow-up note saying that I've "...omitt[ed] the point that the ["royal"] edits ... are part of a broader cleanup..." (for an example of his full remarks, see this), obliging me to place another follow-up, alike to this parenthetical, to dispell the potential impression that I've been less than fully truthful about the situation. Sorry for this digression; I'd much rather have stayed focussed on the main issue.)
-- Lonewolf BC 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Lonewolf BC is here conveniently editing my words placed elsewhere. In full, I have stated: the edits at Official residence are part of a broader cleanup of the article to create a uniform standard; "royal" and "vice-regal" in place of the specific Canadian Monarch and Governor General of Canada brings the Canadian section into line with others which use (by other editors' contributions) "royal," "vice-regal," "presidential," "prime ministerial" and the like.

Comments are certainly welcome at Talk:Official residence to improve the article as a whole. --G2bambino 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Further about this, in the case of Canada the "royalising" edits to "Official residence" are part of a broad campaign by the editor concerned, making the same claim across many articles, most notably the "Rideau Hall" article itself. Your comments are invited there, as well. The "Rideau Hall" talkpage would make a good central place for a discussion of this, I think. -- Lonewolf BC 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is increasingly difficult - By denying that Rideau Hall is the Canadian Monarch's 'official residence', it gives the impression that the Canadian Monarch is a foreigner. However, Rideau Hall is rarely (if ever) described as the Monarch's official residence. I would edit this page based on the 'most recent' edit at Rideau Hall (as it covers the grey area of this topic). GoodDay 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "this page", GoodDay? The Canada article or Official residence?

Of course, Rideau Hall is rarely referred to as the Monarch's residence, but it certainly has been, as the cites at Rideau Hall show. --G2bambino 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant both articles. I accept the addition of the Canadian Monarch. GoodDay 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't argue the point here. The Rideau Hall talkpage is the best place for that. -- Lonewolf BC 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Who's arguing? Anyways - to the Rideau Hall article. GoodDay 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha-ha. You are. You're arguing that no one is arguing. ;-)
Really, I meant that both you and G. posted things that ... might have draw the discussion hither. Call it an incipient argument, if you like. Just heading it off. -- Lonewolf BC 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. GoodDay 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographics section lists Enlish as the first ethnic group at some 20% of the population, then gives a Statcan source which lists Canadian as first with 40% of the population. This is even noted after listing the multiple other ethnicities (English, French, Scottish, Irish, Chinese...). Should it not put Canadian as first?

North Pole claim

I didn't see anything about the North Pole claim and exercises, I think it should be mentioned. For example, that map in the Provinces section shows the claim going to the North Pole, which I don't think many other nations recognize. --AW 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Under the Geography and climate section it says "Since 1925, Canada has claimed the portion of the Arctic between 60°W and 141°W longitude;[26] this claim is not universally recognized." More thorough discussion is included in the article Territorial claims in the Arctic. Do you think that is enough mention? -- Reaper X 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Perspective

On the surface canadians appear to be very polite, which they are. On a deeper level, canadians like americans are disoriented and corrupt more so than other developed countries in europe and asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any concrete evidence of this claim that you've stated? nat^tang 11:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide WP:RS to back up your claims. While also taking into consideration of WP:BLP (which applies to claims that may defame all Canadians) and minority views and lastly WP:REDFLAG. Watchdogb 22:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As a Canadian myself I do recognize that we can be very direct but this is part of the values that we defend.

However, this is not a reason to be insulting and I am sorry if you had a bad experience with some of us.(Laurentien 22:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Canada cultural differences from other countries are relatively minor. Why its mentioned at all rather surprises me, since it appears to be very close to U.S. cultural values. In fact, one of the few cultural distinctions is that Canadians repeatively empathsize the fact that they are not Americans. Why do Canadians have to do that? If their culture is truly unique, wouldn't the world know about it, making emphasis unnecessary? This is coming from a Canadian, by the way.69.158.190.154 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Canadians have to keep repeating the differences because Americans are all too ignorant to see them, if they are even aware that Canada exists. --70.55.68.125 01:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Canada?

Is Canada a kingdom (being a Commonwealth monarchy)? If so, should we add it to the article? GoodDay 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada is a kingdom, but it is unnecessary because the article already states that Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as Sovereign and head of state. nat^tang 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the country can be defined as a kingdom, but articles on other countries that are kingdoms don't describe the countries as such; even United Kingdom (despite its title) doesn't describe the UK as a kingdom, but a constitutional monarchy instead. --G2bambino 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada is not a Kingdom. Canada is a Dominion.

A Dominion has a Governor-General as the resident figure-head of the figure Head-of-State British Monarch (i.e., presently Queen II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

To clarify please review the following list of countries,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Unitary Kingdom,

Dominion of Canada (post-1867) is a Federal Dominion,

Commonwealth of Australia (post-1901) is a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of New Zealand (post-1907) is a Unitary Dominion

Dominion of Newfoundland (1907-1949) was a Unitary Dominion (annexed to the Dominion of Canada in 1949),

Union of South Africa (1910-1961) was a Unitary Dominon,

Irish Free State (1921-1949) was a Unitary Dominion,

Dominion of India (1947-1950) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Pakistan (1947-1956) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Fiji (1970-1987) was a Unitary Dominion.

Independent State of Papua New Guinea (post-1975) is a Unitary Dominion (oops! It is not a Federal Dominion).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Canada is a dominion. GoodDay 23:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. Yep, Canada is a Dominion (not a dominion). The capitalised Dominion term has its meaning explicitly and implicitly defined in the British Commonwealth of Nations Constitutional document, the Statute of Westminster 1931. ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The word Dominion was replaced with Commonwealth Realm in 1948; and Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are Commonwealths, Virginia is a Dominion, and California and Texas are Republics. These are all more curiosities. Is any of this more than an exercise in mindless semantics? No. --Soulscanner 10:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SoulScanner there are 50 States of the US (an offical USA Constitutional term).

4 of the 50 States of the US have Commonwealth as apart of their Style and Title (i.e., their long-form name).

46 of the 50 States of the US have State as apart of their Style and Title (i.e., their long-form name).

Please review the information listed below ... these are much more than mindless semantics.

Royal Styles and Titles 1801 (usage of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1801

"... by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [King], Defender of the Faith."

Royal Styles and Titles 1876 (addition of Empress of India)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1876

"... by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [Queen], Defender of the Faith, Empress of India".

Royal Styles and Titles 1901 (addition of British Dominions beyond the Seas)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1901

"... by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas [King], Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India".

Royal Styles and Titles 1927 (usage of Great Britain, Ireland instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1927

"... by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas [King], Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India".

Royal Styles and Titles 1948 (Emperor of India deleted)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1948

"... by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas [King], Defender of the Faith."

Royal Styles and Titles 1953 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland re-inserted; usage of Realms instead of British Dominions)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1953

"... by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories [Queen], Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ".

Above are the changes in the Royal Style and Titles from about 1801-1953. Upon close inspection one will see that the changes reflect ONLY the BRITISH SOVEREIGN, and indirectly the Royal Domains. The last change of 1953 DOES NOT ABOLISH the term DOMINION, as most people here at Wikipedia try to peddle!!.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Unitary Kingdom,

Dominion of Canada (post-1867) is a Federal Dominion,

Commonwealth of Australia (post-1901) is a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of New Zealand (post-1907) is a Unitary Dominion

Dominion of Newfoundland (1907-1949) was a Unitary Dominion (annexed to the Dominion of Canada in 1949),

Union of South Africa (1910-1961) was a Unitary Dominon,

Irish Free State (1921-1949) was a Unitary Dominion,

Dominion of India (1947-1950) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Pakistan (1947-1956) was a Federal Dominion,

Dominion of Fiji (1970-1987) was a Unitary Dominion.

Independent State of Papua New Guinea (post-1975) is a Unitary Dominion (oops! It is not a Federal Dominion).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Realm article states clearly that 'They are independent kingdoms, and the sovereign is separately and equally monarch of each state; thus, they are in personal union with one another.' If this terminology is in dispute, it would most appropriately be discussed there. So although you say Canada is a Dominion, Soulscanner's point is that this is a semantic distinction - the one meaning does not exclude the other.--Gregalton 15:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec, we're letting this discussion go off track; we're all in agreemtn on not adding 'Kingdom', 'Dominion' or 'Realm' right? If so, then I'm satisfied with the 'current' version. GoodDay 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Main Page request (one more time)

[Reaper X posted this a month ago, since there was apparently no discussion of it, I'm raising it again, S.]

I want to try to get this on the Main Page for Canada Day 2008. It may be quite early to discuss this, but what the hell, gets our ducks lined up. We need to make a request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. The last time it was on the main page was June 23, 2006. What the significance of that day is unknown to me. But the blurb is archived, and it looks a little short to me. Thoughts? -- Reaper X 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea, IMO. I am not sure whether anything was done. I've left a note on Reaper X's talk page to see if he made the request. Anyone else interested in pursuing it?

BTW, I believe that they use the current lead for the Featured article. The one above is virtually identical to the lead on June 23, 2006. In any case, we should check. Sunray 20:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure FAs can appear on the main page twice. There's quite a number of FAs that have never appeared on the front page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that can stop us. I scanned WP:TFA/R and I didn't see anything that hinted that FAs can't appear on the main page twice. As for the actual dated request, the Featured Article Director (Raul654) says the following about them:

"Date requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests in this section at any time. Members of the community may comment on pending dates requests; those without significant support will be removed."

So we got tons of time, 10 months actually. I brought this up now because firstly, the idea didn't dawn on me until now. Secondly, I thought it was stupid that the article was previously featured on June 23 (how the hell is that relevant to Canada?!). Thirdly, if we want this to happen, we have to line our ducks up ahead of time, gain awareness and support for this, and perfect that paragraph that will be displayed to all users of English Wikipedia. -- Reaper X 05:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the subpage /Main page, and put the old paragraph there. Minor tweaks can be made there, and major changes can be discussed here. Cheers. -- Reaper X 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Errors or inaccuracies

I would like to flag several errors or inaccuracies on the main page which show that this page lacks on riguor.

• Canada is country of immigration. The Amerindians crossed the Bearing strait around 25000 years ago surely during an ice age and the Inuits came 5000 years ago.
• Canada does not cover most of North America. It is just slightly larger than the USA and Mexico is not small.
• There is no account of the Viking trial to establish themselves circa 1000 in the first part.
• This phrase is not really correct: "British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast." It should read that "British and French expeditions explored the Atlantic coast." In 1534, at Gaspe, Cartier took the land for the King of France. Only the french settled themselves in 1600 in Tadoussac. This is missing. There is no evidence that Johannes Caboto landed and visited Newfoundland.
• Canada was founded as one Province of New France. In 1605, Acadia was founded as a seperate Province. It covered the the Atlantic Provinces. Terra Nova was also a third Province of new France which became part of the latter Canada in 1949.

Acadia never covered the atlantic provinces. It covered roughly the territory of today's New Brunswick and mainland Nova Scotia. Some of Maine and Gaspé may also have been included, but the islands of Saint-Jean (PEI), Royale (CB), and Terre-Neuve (NF) were never deemed a part of Acadia until after the Deportation. (Laurentien 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

• France never ceded the west part of Louisiana (from the Mississippi to the Rockies) to England in 1763. I want here a serious reference. This story of a secret treaty looks like a hoax.
• In 1837, Canada was declared a Rebublic during the the Patriot Revolt near Montreal which would be fiercly and violently revoked by the British army,
• In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union of two British North American colonies, namely Higher Canada and Lower Canada) and they became Ontario and Quebec and two Provinces were created.
  (Laurentien 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

OK, there's quite a lot here to respond to. First of all, anyone can edit, so you can make any changes you deem necessary. There are several minor changes you could proceed with. However, you will need to ensure that all changes are verifiable. Also, this is a mature article with featured article status. So major changes should be discussed here. If it is a theory, we need to present it in balanced maner to ensure a neutral point of view. Sunray 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They used to be 'Upper Canada' & 'Lower Canada'; actually by 1867 they were called 'Canada West' & 'Canada East'. GoodDay 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please can you quote a source for these words ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007

These "errors and inaccuracies" are neither:

• The article correctly states that the aboriginal people have inhabited Canada for millennia - not forever.

Again, a very unprecise account. I want to make a distinction between Inuits and Amerindians since they do not have the same origins in time and nation. (Laurentien 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

• The article correctly states that Canada covers most of northern North America.

I really disagree on that one since Canada is just slightly larger than the US. And you forget that Mexico is part of North America. Most is not a proper word here for the level of an Encyclopedia. Most means more than half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007

Which is why it says northern North America.Stormhierta 12:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows is discussed.
• The lede makes the correct general statement that "British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast." The body of the article goes on to describe the first, French, settlements. The article does not state that Cabot visited Newfoundland; it states that he explored the coast, and that British fishing outposts were later established in Newfoundland.
• The article gives a general overview of the establishment of colonies, such as New France, which is covered in detail in the main article History of Canada and other articles such as New France.

There is an error. The first settlement was Tadoussac (Province of Canada) in 1600 and then Port Royal in the Province of Acadie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007

• The article states that "the Treaty of Paris (1763) ceded Canada and most of New France," not all of New France; the article says nothing about the west part of Louisiana. (from the Mississippi to the Rockies) to England in 1763.

Again, it should only talk about Canada and then this would be precise. Lets leave the rest for he New France article. (Laurentien 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

• Details on the 1837 rebellions are covered in their main articles. Canada may have been declared a Rebublic by some Patriotes at this time, but that form of government was never established.

But it was declared. This information is of vital importance from the historical sense, since it will explain the violent ensuing repression from the British Army. Even why the Canadian parliement was burned and the capital moved to Ottawa.

Moreover, there is no account of the metis and their leader Louis Riel that were invaded. This was an important part of Canadian history where the British wanted to unite BC with Canada. The metis were already living in a kind of society which refused to enter Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007

• In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union of three British North American colonies: the Province of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Upper and Lower Canada had been a single united province since 1840.

I understand that not every detail that may be of interest or importance to you is addressed in this article; please remember that this is a general overview of Canada. Details and depth are provided in the numerous related articles that are linked throughout this one. - Eron ^Talk 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The information has to accurate and valid and the errors have to be corrected. Remember, this is an Encyclopedia. (Laurentien 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

• • In 1763 France ceded nearly ALL of New France - but not just to UK - much of it went to Spain. Louisiana was quite large - not just the present state. I do not think it is clear that MOST of New France went to UK. --JimWae 05:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New France

Hm. Let's take a closer at this. At its greatest extent, New France included five colonies: Canada, Louisiana, Acadia, Newfoundland, and Hudson Bay. In the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, France ceded the latter three colonies to Great Britain (though it retained Île-Saint-Jean and Île Royale. In 1763, the Treaty of Paris ceded the French colony of Canada and the portion of Louisiana east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. While it appeared that France kept the western portion of Louisiana, under the 1762 Treaty of Fontainebleau - which was kept secret during the Paris negotiations - France had actually given Louisiana to Spain. This meant that after 1763, western Lousiana became Spanish. The only North American possessions remaining in French control were the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. (Western Louisiana returned briefly to French control in the early 1800s under the Treaty of San Ildefonso, but it was almost immediately sold to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase.)

So, did "most" of New France go to Great Britain? Looking at the map suggests to me that it did. The portion of Louisiana west of the Mississippi doesn't seem to be much more than a quarter of the whole - perhaps a third. And, as it turns out, France had already ceded that territory to Spain the year before. Given all this, I don't see that the article is out of line. - Eron ^Talk 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I will check that part about Spain receiving Lousiana. If you can provide a source to justify the statement that Lousiana was ceded to Spain, please do. After that date, the foundation of St-Louis and Chicago (1779) by french settlers make me beleive that Lousiana continued to evolve as a french colony. This would also explain the foundation of places like Boise as far as Idaho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2007

• • However, if we took the area of Louisiana (New France) to be roughly the same as the area of the Louisiana Purchase (which extended to the Rockies), it would be considerably harder to determine which was "most". Open questions are 1. How accurate is the map? 2. Did Spain return to France more land in the area than they had before? --JimWae 00:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree here. I do not where that map comes from and it might be false. Please do provide references. It seems to reduce the size of new France and therefore does not match the ones that you can find on official Quebec government sites. (Laurentien 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)).

Laurentien, before I get into a detailed discussion, can I ask that in future, you please sign your posts, and that you keep your comments together rather than interleafing them through other peoples' posts? You've made a lot of comments in response to me, and that's great, but it's a bit hard to keep track of who said what the way you have them all mixed in there. On to the details. This gets lengthy, sorry, but you've raised a lot of points and I want to be sure I get them all.

They used to be 'Upper Canada' & 'Lower Canada'; actually by 1867 they were called 'Canada West' & 'Canada East'.

Please can you quote a source for these words ?

The Act of Union 1840 joined the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada into a single united Province of Canada. "Canada East" and "Canada West" were terms used to refer to the parts of the united province that had been Upper and Lower Canada. This is pretty basic part of the History of Canada; see The Canadian Encyclopedia's entry on the Province of Canada for a typical reference on the subject.

The article correctly states that the aboriginal people have inhabited Canada for millennia - not forever.

Again, a very unprecise account. I want to make a distinction between Inuits and Amerindians since they do not have the same origins in time and nation.

That is a fine distinction to be made - but I suggest that this article, which is a general overview of Canada, is not the best place to make it. The history section of this article is accurate in what it says.

The article correctly states that Canada covers most of northern North America.

I really disagree on that one since Canada is just slightly larger than the US. Most is not a proper word here for the level of an Encyclopedia.

"Most" seems to be a perfectly adequate word. Please read the sentence again: it says most of northern North America. The continental land mass of North America spans from about 10 degrees to 80 degrees north latitude. If "northern" North America is the upper half of this, then it starts at about 45 degrees north. With the exception of Alaska, Canada has everything north of 49, and much of eastern Canada extends to and below 45. I can't see how this doesn't qualify as "most" of northern North America.

The article gives a general overview of the establishment of colonies, such as New France, which is covered in detail in the main article History of Canada and other articles such as New France.

There is an error. The first settlement was Tadoussac (Province of Canada) in 1600 and then Port Royal in the Province of Acadie.

I have looked for a clear reference on this. The Canadian Encyclopedia entry on Tadoussac states that "Pierre Chauvin tried in vain to establish a colony here in 1600." Many other references - like this one describe Port-Royal as the first permanent settlement. Parliament agrees. I think the burden of proof is on you to show a reference that Tadoussac is the first permanent settlement.

Details on the 1837 rebellions are covered in their main articles. Canada may have been declared a Rebublic by some Patriotes at this time, but that form of government was never established.

This information is of vital importance from the historical sense, since it will explain the violent ensuing repression from the British Army. Even why the Canadian parliement was burned and the capital moved to Ottawa.

Then I suggest that it be added - with appropriate references of course - to the main article on the 1837 Rebellions.

The information has to be accurate and valid and the errors have to be corrected. Remember, this is an Encyclopedia.

As I have noted above, the information is accurate and valid. This is an encyclopedia, and it is an encyclopedia with many, many articles. A lot of your concern seems to be that information isn't included in this article, but it is included in the encyclopedia, in the many many articles that are linked to from this general overview.

I will check that part about Spain receiving Lousiana. If you can provide a source to justify the statement that Lousiana was ceded to Spain, please do. After that date, the foundation of St-Louis and Chicago (1779) by french settlers make me beleive that Lousiana continued to evolve as a french colony. This would also explain the foundation of places like Boise as far as Idaho.

You are looking for information on the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762), by which France ceded Louisiana to Spain. The subsequent Treaty of Paris (1763) gave the part of Lousiana east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. Regarding St. Louis, Missouri, that was first settled in 1763. It may have been settled by French settlers, but it was governed by Spain, and then the United States. As to Chicago, it was first settled in 1779 by "an African-American from Sainte-Domingue (Haiti)."

Agree here. I do not where that map comes from. It seems to reduce the size of new France and therefore does not match the ones that you can find on official Quebec government sites.

That map comes from the Wikipedia entry on New France. If you have another map that shows different boundaries, please provide a link; I'd be happy to take a look at it. - Eron ^Talk 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Size of Louisiana

Here are some indications that Louisiana was larger than on that map. Another indication, of course, is what the US claimed as being the Louisiana Purchase

• http://www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/CARTE2.HTM
• http://www.canadiana.org/citm/imagepopups/nf-1759_e.html
• http://www.civilization.ca/vmnf/intro/intro3-en.htm
• http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005701
• http://www.collectionscanada.ca/05/0517/05170201_e.html
  • --JimWae 00:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll jump in since I just did some work on the previous map, I'm not sure what the issue is as these generally seem to agree with it. The 1750 map sources are clearly given on that maps wiki page, it limits New France to the area actually known at the time, the French claim would continue all the way to the Rockies, but that hadn't been explored yet. Regardless of which map you're looking at though roughly 2/3 went to the British and 1/3 went to Spain in 1763. Kmusser 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But if the French claim goes to the Rockies, then the actual size of Louisiana is larger than they then thought & makes the percentages much closer, no? --JimWae 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The size of Louisiana is larger than they thought, but not enough to make a significant change in the percentages, you're talking a difference of 200,000 sq. miles or so in a total area well over 2 million sq. miles. Kmusser 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

According to World Book, Louisiana Purchase was 2,144,476 km² (827,987 sq mi). Do you have figures for parts ceded to UK?--JimWae 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going by a rough drawing of polygons in mapping software, so definitely not scientific but good enough to get rough numbers and for the Louisiana got (in sq. miles) 600,000 by the 1750 map, 800,000 in 1803 - the rest of New France 1,700,000 - those are all going to be underestimated since I wasn't going for precision, but should be in proportion to each other. Kmusser 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Federal" in the first paragraph?

I'd like to settle the editorial issues about the lead one at a time, if we can, folks. This seems like a good place to start: Should Canada's federal nature be mentioned in the first paragraph, or should all of that go in the same paragraph with the other stuff on about its system of government and political structure, presently the third paragraph?
So far Gregalton, Jeff3000, and myself have agreed that it belongs in the third paragraph, though our reasons are not all the same. Others? -- Lonewolf BC 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be there, but it makes for a better first line than the one that calls Canada the second biggest country. The first line should define the topic, and being big is not Canada defining characteristic. If you want to take the word "federal" out of the opening paragraph you have to come up with a new sentence to put in its place. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have reverted this edit. 'Federal country' is a kitschy description (replace with 'federation' or, grudgingly, 'federal state'), and many volumes note first and foremost that Canada is the second largest country in the world. Also note that the last sentence of the current first paragraph deals with its federal structure; A.g's recent edit duplicates content unnecessarily.

However, the introduction I've restored needn't be set in stone; I also don't mind the introduction prior to my recent edits of it or variation. For example:

• Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a country occupying most of northern North America, and is the second largest country in the world by total area. It extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. A federation comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest.

Thoughts? Quizimodo 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not picky about the exact wording, but I can't stand the first sentence only saying that Canada is the second biggest country. The first sentence should define the topic and say what Canada is. The fact that it is the second biggest country just isn't important enough to be the first thing we say. Note the article on the United States, which opens by calling that country a "federal constitutional republic"; or the United Kingdom, which opens by calling that country "a kingdom and sovereign state". In both cases the articles do repeat the opening fact later in more detail, so I don't think that duplication is a big problem. Your suggested amendment above is a bit better in that it adds location, but I still don't think that it is right for the very first line. The location and size should be in the second sentence, and the first should define Canada in some way, by either calling it a "federal nation-state", or a "constitutional monarchy", or a "dominion", or something similar. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the lead pretty much as it is. A great deal of time and discussion have gone into creating it. The article is a featured article, so one would not expect to see major changes without discussion and consensus. As to mention of Canada's size: I don't agree with Arctic.gnome. Canada has been defined by its geography—its vast spaces. In size we are comparable to Russia, the U.S. and China. And that is interesting. Our history has been a testament to the importance of the vastness of the Canadian wilderness. Our role on the international scene is not so much related to our population as to our size and resources. The article elaborates this theme in myriad ways.

As to "federal country." Again, I like the way it is dealt with in the current lead (i.e., political description in the third paragraph). Sunray 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary to Aug 26

Drawing together the comments so far, there seems to be consensus for removing the "federal" stuff from the opening paragraph. In the following summary, I've tried to accurately show the views expressed so far, but please each confirm or correct your own. -- Lonewolf BC 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC):

In support

• Lonewolf BC (16:10 & 16:27, 15 August)
• Gregalton (16:28, 15 August)(unconfirmed)
• Jeff3000 (17:30, 15 August)(confirmed)
• Watchdogb (00:55, 22 August)(unconfirmed)
• Eron (01:18, 22 August)(unconfirmed)
• --Soulscanner 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Conditionally agreeable

• Arctic Gnome (22:12, 25 August)(unconfirmed)

Stance unclear

• Quizimodo

Comments:

I'm ok with it as is, and I really liked the version from about a month ago where the lead was separated into geographical,historical,organizational paragraphs.
-- Jeff3000 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This poll seems completely unnecessary given that no one seem to be arguing in favour of keeping the word federal in the opening line. I only reverted because no one added a better line to replace the one about federalism after it was taken away, making a less important line about Canada's relative size the first line. The new first line should be something like the opening line of the United States or United Kingdom articles:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a ????? occupying most of northern North America.

A more useful poll would be to figure out what should replace the ????? in that line. Looking at past discussions, it seems that some people want to keep it simple and just use the word "country" while others want to be more specific and use something like "federation", "dominion", or "constitutional monarchy".
--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone put "federal" and that other govermental/political material into the first paragraph! This is just about removing it to the paragraph otherwise covering governmental/political material, without making other changes to the lead. Such removal would leave us with simple "country". Other options would still be open for consideration. -- Lonewolf BC 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think this needs a poll - it's not that there are only two positions and I think we can try different wordings to get one that can work. "Federal country" is a disaster - it just sounds ridiculous. But if some feel that 'second largest country' is not acceptable for the first para, I've suggested the following: 'Canada is a country composed of ten provinces and three territories joined in a federation.' While I don't necessarily agree that second largest country should be banished from the first sentence - it is notable - 'biggest' is a somewhat weak opening comment (reminds of the Three Dead Trolls song, "Canada's really big!"). Grateful comments on the suggested text.--Gregalton 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that try at organising discussion went over like a lead balloon. :-(
First off, this was not meant as a poll so much as a summary of the comments made here and there by the sundry parties, and a drawing together of discussion on a particular point, with the general intent of making the editing of the lead more methodical. (Of course polls in WP are meant to be a means of ordering discussion much more than of counting votes, so perhaps it is "poll" in so far as that.)
This discussion has been rendered somewhat pointless by the reverting of the lead away from the version which it was meant to work upon. However, the general issue remains of whether not to make the opening paragraph strictly geographic -- location, bounds and exceptional size -- calling Canada simply a "country", therein, and leaving political and governmental descriptions (and other kinds of descriptions) for later in the lead. I think the former is the better approach, for reasons given already (16:10 & 16:27, 15 August 2007).
-- Lonewolf BC 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Renewed discussion on lead (as reverted to Aug 8 version)

I've reverted the lead to the August 8 version (which had been in place for many moons). I would suggest we work out the changes on this page and get consensus. People are arguing be bold. However, WP:CON is clear that "editorial decisions are made by consensus." That is particularly important for a stable featured article. I think a poll would be in order. Arctic.gnome has suggested that the first sentence be changed to remove the reference to Canada being the second largest country in the world and Gregalton proposed that it be changed from this:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is the second largest country in the world by total area.

to this:

Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a country composed of ten provinces and three territories joined in a federation.

Whether or not we have a poll on this, I think that we should allow about one week for discussion. In the meantime, the lead should remain in the last version before this discussion began ((i.e., August 8) . Sunray 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I don't mind the long-standing introduction; my recent edits -- namely, moving the sentence 'A federation comprising ten provinces and three territories' to the 1st paragraph -- were intended as a conciliation of sorts to those who wish to include some note about Canada's federal nature upfront, a not unreasonable expectation. That being said, 'joined in a federation' is somewhat redundant, since a federation is a union of entities that ascribe to federalism.

I've suggested one alternate above:

• Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a country occupying most of northern North America, and is the second largest country in the world by total area. It extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. A federation comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest.

Alternatively:

• Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a country occupying most of northern North America, and is the second largest country in the world by total area. A federation comprising ten provinces and three territories, 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 south and northwest.

To shake things up a bit:

• Canada (IPA: /kæn.ə.də/) is a federation occupying most of northern North America, comprising ten provinces and three territories. The world's second largest country by total area, 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 south and northwest.

Also, 'federal dominion' can be substituted for 'federation'. Thoughts? Quizimodo 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer your 'first' proposal, Quizimdo. GoodDay 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the first two; the third leaves out the word country (which I think useful for clarity - as we have seen on the talk pages ad infinitum, the (crank) view crops up with reliable frequency that it is not an independent country, and other variants on this meme). One quibble: saying "joined in a federation" does not seem redundant (they could be joined in a colonial relationship, a personal union, or some other form of union): the federation (federalism) refers to the specific form of union. Lots of countries have provinces or similar entities that are not federations. Of course, you could simply leave out the word joined: "composed of ten provinces and three territories in federation."--Gregalton 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, GD. Actually, G, '(world's second largest) country' appears in the 2nd sentence of 3rd version. Regarding 'joined in federation' or similar, it is unnecessarily wordy and sounds pseudo-regal (i.e., the syntax is off to me): a 'federation' is a union, not vice versa, and Canada's federal nature can probably be better noted/described in another way. Quizimodo 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on not phrasing properly with respect to country: I would prefer it go in the first sentence is what I meant. And on federation/union: the point is, all federations are unions, but all unions are not federations ("President's Choice: Memories of Venn Diagrams(TM). Hence, to say they are 'joined in a federation' is not redundant. Now, if you don't like the way it sounds, that's a good subjective reason (perhaps why I don't like 'federal country').--Gregalton 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I like neither 'federal country' nor 'joined in (a) federation'; anyhow, boldly (but not with the intent of stirring any pots), I've made minor tweaks to the introduction, I think enough to address concerns while still succinct and methodical ('high-brow'?) as before. Thoughts? Quizimodo 15:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Quizimodo's second option best accommodates people's concerns. Version 2 is good in that it defines Canada as a country before giving any trivia stats on it, and it also mentions Canada's federal nature early. I still don't see what's wrong with the term "federal country", but the consensus seems to be against me. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to keep the opening paragraph geographic, call Canada simply a "country" therein, and save explanation of its governance and political structure (and of its other characteristics beyond its location, bounds and great size) for later in the lead. See my earlier comments of 16:10 (last two paragraphs thereof) and more especially of
16:27, 15 August 2007. -- Lonewolf BC 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. However, in an all-geographic opening paragraph, I strongly feel that defining Canada as a country in North America should be before the trivial statistic of it being the second largest country. Also, if we are to use themed paragraphs in the introduction, I suggest making the paragraph about Canada's political system and economic position in the world the second one (it is now third). I think that this information is (slightly) better at giving an overall definition of Canada than is the history paragraph.
--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree about your first point. See my earlier comments of 16:10, 15 August (diff provided in last post). I also agree about you second one.  :-)
-- Lonewolf BC 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph geographic-only ?

Let me take another try at a one-thing-at-a time appoach to editing the lead. This is like the earlier "federal" question, but generalised:
Shall we limit the opening paragraph to fundamental geography -- location, bounds and size? This entails using simply "country" for that paragraph, and leaving for later all stuff on form of government and political organization (and anything else: society, economy, languages, etc.) I say that we should do so, for reasons given on 15 Aug (see diffs provided below). I believe that there may already be consensus for this, as shown below. As before, I have done my best to accurately show the stances expressed so far, but please each confirm or correct your own. -- Lonewolf BC 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In favour

• Lonewolf BC (16:10 & 16:27, 15 Aug)
• Jeff3000 (17:30, 15 Aug; 17:33, 26 Aug)(confirmed)
• Watchdogb (00:55, 22 Aug)(confirmed)
• Eron (01:18, 22 Aug)(confirmed)

Agreeable (surely not opposed, but not actually in favour, either)

• Quizimodo (based on according edits to article 14:49-15:45, 27 Aug)
• GoodDay (based on [above mentioned] edits to article).

Conditionally agreeable

• Arctic Gnome (22:12, 25 Aug; 17:47, 26 Aug; 12:12, 31 Aug; 16:48, 31 Aug)
  (unconfirmed; proviso is that something go before "second largest country")

Undecided

• Gregalton (16:28, 15 Aug; 18:16, 26 Aug; 20:12, 26 Aug)
• 20:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (19:59, 26 Aug)
• Sunray 18:11, 26 Aug

Opposed

• Laurentien (22:01, 30 Aug)

Stance unclear

(This emptied category was only a temporary depot for those of whose opinions I felt unsure, based on the comments they'd made up till I set up this survey.
-- Lonewolf BC 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Comments

My feeling is that references to the political structure of Canada - beyond "country" - in the opening sentence will mean that there will be a never-ending series of debates over how to describe that structure. (As anyone reviewing the, um, "spirited" conversations on this page and in archives about federation vs. dominion vs. constitutional monarchy vs. Commonwealth realm will be able to see.) - Eron ^Talk 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; the geographical discription alone, is discriptive enough. GoodDay 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say my own stance is unclear. I primarily objected to the 'federal country' phrasing. Now that I look at the lead again, trying to step back, it is boring. I am sympathetic to those scarred by the Wars of Dominion, but wonder if having geography as the only thing in the first para is the best we can do - and also, whether we should allow the fear of edit wars to stop us from doing better. But at any rate, 'unclear' does accurately represent my views on the lead.--Gregalton 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved myself into the "stance unclear" column. I agree with what Gregalton has said, we should not shy away from discussion here. I do think that it would be easier to have two or three options to chose from, and liked the way Quizimodo presented options in the previous section. Why don't we revisit those options, pick a couple to choose from and vote? Sunray 16:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the survey-categories, to make them clearer:

• "Stance unclear" was meant to be only a temporary place for those whose opinions I could not well make out. In other words, I foresaw that it would be emptied as people moved themselves to other categories. Instead, it became used as an "Undecided" category -- which is fine but not quite the same thing, so I have changed its title accordingly. The difference is that "Stance unclear" meant "unclear" to me, while "Undecided" refers to the person's own (considered) lack of a definite stance.
• "Agreeable": I've elaborated on what this means (in parentheses).
• "In support": I've made this "In favour", instead, though this does not affect the meaning.

-- Lonewolf BC 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tadoussac

Dear all,

I will try to deal with each problem one after the other. Here is the first issue which is an error in the text. In History, it was said that: "French explorer Samuel de Champlain arrived in 1603 and established the first permanent European settlements at Port Royal in 1605 and Quebec City in 1608."

There are two errors. First, this is Tadoussac that is the first permanent European settlements made by France after the failed attempts of St Augustine (Florida) and New Angouleme (New York). If you go on Tadoussac's website, you can verify that. It is even written on the french version of Canada in Wikipedia. Second, at its foundation, Port-Royal was not part of the Province of Canada but of the Province of Acadia, both part of New France. This distinction needs to be made in order to be exact. Quebec is only the second esatblishment of Canada and became its capital and the capital of New France at the same time.

If you leave those facts out, this article will carry errors. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. (Laurentien 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Once again, I do not believe that these are not errors. Every history text and reference that I am aware of defines Port Royal as the first permanent settlement in Canada. Yes, Tadoussac was settled in 1600, but that settlement did not survive, much as the settlement at Ile-St-Croix did not survive. You need to provide a reliable source to support your claim that Tadoussac is the first permanent settlement. Neither the French Wikipedia nor a municipal web site really qualifies, not when placed next to the sources that support Port Royal.

As to the distinction between the New France provinces of Canada and Acadia, that is not a distinction that really needs to be made in this general overview article. Canada - the subject of the article - includes the territory of both those provinces. Detail of their respective histories are covered in their own articles.

I haven't removed these additions, but unless you can provide a reliable source for Tadoussac, I will have to. - Eron ^Talk 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one in french. You can find the foundation date of Tadoussac in any serious history textbook. Altough, Tadoussac had difficulties, it did survive until modern times. I then really considere that it should stay there and why is it that you decide what should be removed and left ? Are you a university professor specialised in the history of Canada ? (Laurentien 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I am sorry, but I don't see the reference you say you have provided. I am well aware that Tadoussac was founded in 1600. I am also aware that Tadoussac was eventually permanently settled. But there is no reference for the claim that Tadoussac is Canada's earliest permanent settlements - the only references I know of say that Port Royal is the earliest permanent settlement. My qualifications are irrelevant; what is relevant is that content in this encyclopedia must be verifiable and must be based on reliable sources. And it is on that basis that I - or any other editor - can decide what should be removed. - Eron ^Talk 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reference coming from the Civilisation Museum. http://www.civilization.ca/vmnf/reper/glossair/r-ge-09.htm. That is good enough as far as I am concerned. Your qualifications are important. According to what you say, myself - as en editor - will be putting it back if you remove it. (Laurentien 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)) I do not understand why you cannot accept that Tadoussac is the first settlement. I will then call on the others and we will have to make a vote. (Laurentien 23:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I draw your attention to what that reference says: "Tadoussac was the first European settlement built north of Mexico." It does not say permanent settlement. This is an important distinction. Yes, Tadoussac was settled before Port Royal - as I have stated before. But it was not permanent - the initial settlement failed. - Eron ^Talk 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You really do not want to see Tadoussac mentionned. Anyway, the facts are that Tadoussac was founded in 1600 and still exists. This defines a permanent settlement. You might identify a breach in the continuity of its existence but this does not remove the fact that Tadoussac is permanent. I still completely disagree with you and maybe to make a gesture, then I would accept to use a phrase similar to the one proposed by the Civilisation Museum. (Laurentien 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Your argument is a synthesis and is considered original research and is not allowed per Wikipedia policies. Please take a little while to get familiar with how Wikipedia works. verifiability and no original research are some core policies. -- Jeff3000 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see what can be considered research in my point. It is ublished fact that Tadoussac was founded in 1600 and is thus the first settlement. It is also permanent since Tadoussac exists today. Can you explain to me what is research here ? Another issue, I have seen no document explaining that Tadoussac has not been permanent. (Laurentien 22:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

By the same token, if I moved to L'anse aux meadows tomorrow and set up a tent could I claim that it is now the oldest permanent european settlement in North America? Be serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.162.162 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This section of this general article on Canada is about its history. I do want there this distinction with Acadia since Canada commenced as a Province of New France which was not covering the actual Canada. This is important information. (Laurentien 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I really don't see the distinction here. The history section refers correctly to New France; if we are going to distinguihs between the provinces of New France, then we need to mention all five of them - Canada, Acadia, Hudson Bay, Newfoundland, and Louisiana - not just two. As the article New France does. - Eron ^Talk 23:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we mention about all Provinces of New France that are covered by present day Canada. So, this excludes Louisana the seperation between the two is not clear.(Laurentien 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Completely agree with Eron on these issues. The sources don't corroborate the statement in the article, and should be removed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Tadoussac is the first settlement. (Laurentien 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

The sources don't corroborate the statement, and thus it cannot be included in the article. -- Jeff3000 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You say so, but I have to disagree and the source do say what I have reported about it. Now, you should give a source prooving that Tadoussac disappeared and reappeared long after the other mentions. If you want to remove Tadoussac from there, you have to prove it or it will stay. You are only two who constantly refuse to acknowledge the facts that I have brought here. Wikipedia is supposed to be a consensus between some editors (who ? and hown many ?). I would like to read the opinion of others and not let only two persons be the safekeepers. (Laurentien 22:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Sorry it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add material. find a source that states that Tadoussac is the first permanent settlement. Combining statements as I explained above does not pass Wikipedia's policies. Secondly be aware of undue weight, which states that "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Most sources state that Port Royal was the first permanent settlement, and thus that majority view has more description than the majority view.

Finally please stop changing the lead (intro). Changes to the lead have to have strong consensus as can be seen with all the other discussions going on with it. -- Jeff3000 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We appear to be getting bogged down over the first vs. first permanent issue. There are sources for the fact that a settlement was attempted at Tadoussac in 1600. That settlement is not mentioned in this article; I am not sure whether or not it should be, as this is a summary. However, I have noticed that Tadoussac doesn't get a mention in History of Canada either. I think the first known settlement is probably worthy of mention there, alongside a description of the first permanent settlements dating from 1604. I'll find a good reference document and go put that in. - Eron ^Talk 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jacques Cartier

In the section History, it is said that Jacques Cartier explored Canada. This is by far too general and undervalues what he represents to Canada. He is put at the same level as Johannes Caboto. In fact, Jacques Cartier made three voyages (this should be written). He landed first in Gaspe and on the next trips, he visited even the Island of Montreal where he discovered Hochelaga an Iroquois village. On his first trip, when he arrived at Gaspe, he did put a flag for the King of France and he also founded Canada as a Colony of France. This needs to be described in the text in order to show that he is much more important than Johannes Caboto who only sailed passed Terra Nova. (Laurentien 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Hello 'Laurentien', would you 'please' sign your posts with 'four tildes'. GoodDay 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You will be pleased to note that the main article Jacques Cartier fully describes his voyages of exploration. As to John Cabot, he didn't merely sail past Newfoundland; he landed, and he mapped the coast from there down to Nova Scotia - and he did so more than 30 years before Cartier. His activities laid the foundation for Britain's claim to Canada. - Eron ^Talk 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

This article as is is already too long, and the history section is one of the main reasons. As per summary style, this is supposed to be an overview article with details left to the daughter articles such as the History of Canada. The details of Jacques Cartier's voyages should be left to other articles. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof of the fact that Johannes Caboto landed anywhere in Canada. State a reference which corroborate your statement. Ihe Civilisation Museum information http://www.civilization.ca/hist/cadeau/cacab01f.html, the wording leaves a lot of uncertainety to where he was exploring and there is account that he landed. I have been looking for a serious form of information which indicates that he did and nobody could produce one yet. (Laurentien 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Here's one from the Encyclopedia Brittanica: [1]

" The exact landing place has never been definitely established: it has been variously believed to be in southern Labrador, Newfoundland, or Cape Breton Island."

While it's not an exact location, it is Canada's Atlantic coast which is what the article states. Regards, -- Jeff3000 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And here's another one Leacock, Stephen (2004). The Dawn of Canadian History: A Chronicle. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 141915866X. which states:

"The older histories used always to speak as if John Cabot had landed somewhere on the coast of Labrador, and had at best gone no farther south than Newfoundland. ... Without doubt they were the first to unfurl the flag of England, and to erect the cross upon soil which afterwards became part of British North America. ... Cape Breton island was probably the place of Cabot's landing."

Regards, -- Jeff3000 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jeff3000, your imformation just corroborates my words. Hence we agree on that. We have no exact information of where he landed. There is no proof of that but knowing that he sailed passed (where he sailed is also not exactly known) then we assume that has he has landed. the fact that is that he did explore something of Canada for the King of England. But it does not go further and we still need to find original documents which might help us find that. Hence, Cartier is the only one we know for sure to land in Canada since I have seen his cross in Gaspe and by the way he is the only one to give a specific account of the lost St-Lawrence Iroquois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentien (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to find "original documents" regarding Cabot's landing. Please review Wikipedia policy on original research. What we need to find is a source that is reliable and verifiable which states that he landed. And we have done that. We are not supposed to be engaged in primary research here; we are supposed to be synthesizing and summarizing what has already been determined. - Eron ^Talk 01:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to completetly disagree. There is nothing here about research, it is a question of writing somethinh which is reflects the thuth. The fact is that the source you cite is only speculating that maybe he has landed. This has not been determined, read your own citations. Please, lets be precise and the only valid wording would be to say that Caboto (by the way, he is Italian, so we should use his Italian name) has explored Canada and may have landed but it has been proven yet, so to say that he has landed is pure speculation on our part here and thus it is completely incorrect. (Laurentien 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

While Cabot's landing place is uncertain, that he landed is not. We aren not speculating; we are reporting what the sources say, sources such as this one and this one. As for his name, he is commonly known in English as John Cabot, and in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions that is how he is referred to in the article. - Eron ^Talk 00:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Louis Riel and the metis of the prairies

I think that the history section should have a word about how the Prairies were conquered from the metis in order to extend Canada from Ontario to BC. We should not be afraid to mention the complexity of politics there that led to a war. The metis considered themselves a nation in it true sense.(Laurentien 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)).

Canada's foundation

In the leading paragraph in the document states: "In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union of three British North American colonies."

This is not true. Firstly, Canada was founded by Jacques Cartier. He is the one who gave that name to this land. It should be mentionned in there. In 1867, Canada became a federal state which name was British North America. Even tough it was called a confederation, it was truly a Dominion: a possession of an Empire, in this case: the British Empire. It contained only four Provinces which were expanded to ten (not always in a friendly manner). This was the political system that Canada would retain until 1949 when the Empire was converted into a Commonwealth.

This phrase is somewhat shocking for French Canadians, since it fails to recognize where Canada really comes from. (Laurentien 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

As the article's lead sentence states, this article is about Canada the country (i.e. political entity). Although Cartier is the source of the name (via the locals), as mentioned in the article, he did not establish the current political entity. There is plenty of detail about the meaning of Dominion elsewhere, and indeed in this article.--Gregalton 00:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Canada was founded as a country by Jacques cartier in an entity that was a Province of New France. I do not see why the article should be restricted to any part to its political history. The people who are going to read this article will wish to be informed about Canada in ALL of its aspects not be restricted to one political entity that only a few people have decided to limit. Canada was not formed in 1867. A specific form of political system which was the Dominion with name BNAA, part of the British Empire. It terms of geography, its was not even the actual Canada with all its 10 Provinces and territories. By the way, it should mentionned that Canada was part of the British Empire until 1949 and then became a member of the Commonwealth. (Laurentien 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

This is all mentioned in the article. Jacques Cartier called the area Canada and claimed it for France, as described in the Etymology. His colonization attempts failed. New France was founded by Samuel de Champlain. The territory of Canada claimed by New France can be found at Canada, New France. This article discusses the federation that was founded in 1867 (the one that includes British Columbia, a territory that neither Cartier or Champlain knew about. --Soulscanner 07:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not satisfied by the way things are turned in the Etymology. It is not clearly stated but implied. I have to totally disagree with this restriction that "This article discusses the federation that was founded in 1867" for the reason of honesty. Canada as a country has seen different stages which started with New France. I will not accept this limitation. This is wrong, because the title does not say Federation of Canada. (Laurentien 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

The country that holds a seat in the United Nations and recognized internationally is the one that was founded in 1867, just as the entity called the United States is the one founded in 1776, and the one called Germany is the one unified in 1871. That is not to say that there is no history before this, or that these territories were not referred to as such before these unifications.

From the standpoint of Wikipedia, I recommenced that you accept the consensus here. It is a pretty strong one backed up by common knowledge and documented and referenced facts, and you will make yourself look foolish by indulging in contentious editing. Why not work on articles such as Jesuit Relations and Jacques Cartier, where you can go into the level of detail you are talking about. These articles need improving; this one only needs tweaking and updating as it is already a feature class article. --Soulscanner 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Laurentien, I have to ask if you have given this article a careful reading, or if you are just picking out bits you don't like. Several of your complaints do not reflect what is actually written. You say of Cartier that "he is the one who gave that name to this land." Very true, as the Etymology section - the first part of the body of the article - clearly states. You quote the sentence "In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union of three British North American colonies," and say this "is somewhat shocking for French Canadians, since it fails to recognize where Canada really comes from." But the three sentences immediately preceding that one describe clearly, albeit briefly, the founding roles played by First Nations, the French, and the British. I am concerned that your edits seem to be introducing a single point of view focussed on the French part of the founding of Canada, to the exclusion of other factors - as in your deletion of a reference regarding Cabot's landing here, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EronMain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did read through it and you ? I could ask you the same question. I would like YOU to do careful reading of this article and realize how imprecise it is and also what it implies. This text here: "In 1867, Canada was formed through an act of union..." is not correct since Canada was not formed in 1867. This is the word formed that is not correct here. It was the Dominion part of an Empire which a lot of problems to find a solution which would satisfy the two colonial nations that was formed then. I would suggest then: "In 1867, The Dominion of Canada was formed through an act of union of four Provinces, namely Ontario, Quebec, NB and NS." This means a lot more than saying that it was formed by three former british colonies (its does not add relevant information here and we have to save space) and then "... which led to the modern Constitution of 1982 with the 10 Provinces, Nunavut and 2 Territories". This is more precise. Finally, to recognize a founding role to mainly the french and their amerindians allies does not remove the contribution to all the other nations that would help make the actual Canada. Foundation and evolution are not to be mistaken. This is then wrong to say that I just want to present a single point of view. The other factors will be put in place if they reflect reality. Caboto has not necessarily landed in Canada. Most citations conjecture that he should have landed but they cannot tell where. These statement do not bring facts. The only things that are clear in most documents is that Caboto has explored the coast of Canada. (Laurentien 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

As has been mentioned already, this article is about the country of Canada, which was formed in 1867. It would be wrong to say that it "was formed through an act of union of four Provinces," because immediately prior to Confederation the provinces of Ontario and Quebec did not exist. There was a single Province of Canada, which joined with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Upon Confederation, that single province then divided into two.

Well Eron, you keep removing things from your own initiative and if I keep putting them back one, where is going to lead us ? There is not even a trial of consensus, but a consensus between whom, five guys who pretend to have the right to decide what is good or bad.

Maybe the word Province is not the exact word to use here, but the fact is for a long period of time Canada was divided in upper and lower Canada also refered to as Ontario and Quebec. I would like something to be metionned since there is nothing about the period between 1763 and 1867 in the first section.

There are other issues with your most recent edits, which is why I removed them:

• You replaced "France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763," with "France ceded the Province of Canada, part of New France, in 1763." This is incorrect; France had four colonies in North America: Canada, Hudson Bay, Newfoundland, and Lousiana. The first three were entirely ceded to Britain, as was most of Lousiana; the rest of Lousiana went to Spain. The only North American possession left to France after 1763 was St Pierre and Miquelon.

I disagree here with you. In 1763, France only ceded Canada to the British Empire. Moreover, the french colonies were Terra Nova (yes, the first settlers are french), Canada, Acadia and Louisiana. I do not know where you got that Hudson Bay was french. To be more exact, two french explorers helped the Hudson Bay company to establish itself there. Finally, this story about France conceding Lousiana to Spain is unproven and there is serious reference to write it. (Laurentien 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

• You added "As a consquence of the Patriot Revolt, in 1867, the Dominion of Canada was formed..." While the 1837 rebellions were one of the steps on Canada's long road from colony to country, they were not the only one. It is a misleading oversimplification to describe confederation as a direct result of 1837. Regarding the use of "Dominion" I would ask that you review the other discussions on this page regarding that point.

Firstly, you underestimate the importance of the movement that led to the Patriot Rebelion. There was a memento that was sent to London signed by several very influencial persons of Lower Canada asking more effective powers and the right to control a budget from which monies could be levied. The King's response was NIET. This led to the declaration of the Republic of Canada (this idea came from the USA) which resulted in the violent repression of the rebellion where villages were burned south of Montreal and several persons killed. We should talk about that in the History part. Later, Louis Lafontaine and others managed to have a motion in helping restauration of te family who suffered from the violence of the British army. This was badly accepted by English from Montreal who destroyed the parliement that was in Montreal. Then, it moved to Ottawa and commenced a period when London would try to find a political system that would solve all the problems. (Laurentien 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

• You added "Canada has recently signed the NAFTA, a free-trade treaty with the US, Mexico and Chile." NAFTA is described in the body of the article and doesn't really need to be in the lead. Chile is not a member of NAFTA; the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, or CCFTA, is a different treaty.

- Eron ^Talk 01:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK for the CCFTA, this was my error. (Laurentien 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

At the end of the text, why write this part: " with which Canada has had a long and complex relationship." which is by far a partial judgment. I think that in the lead it is ncessary to mention NAFTA since this has a lot of importance. (Laurentien 21:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

For ease of reading, I am going to quote and respond rather than weave my comments in above.

• Well Eron, you keep removing things from your own initiative and if I keep putting them back one, where is going to lead us ? There is not even a trial of consensus, but a consensus between whom, five guys who pretend to have the right to decide what is good or bad.

It isn't about "good or bad"; it is about what is factual, referenced, and verifiable, and what is not. It is about what should be discussed in detail in an overview article, and what belongs in related articles. And it is about maintaining the quality of a featured article. As I said, take a look at up this page at the discussion going on around changes to one single sentence.

• Maybe the word Province is not the exact word to use here, but the fact is for a long period of time Canada was divided in upper and lower Canada also refered to as Ontario and Quebec. I would like something to be metionned since there is nothing about the period between 1763 and 1867 in the first section.

There is nothing about that period in the first section, above the table of contents, because that section is the introduction. That period is covered in some detail in the History section, later in this article, and in even greater detail in the articles History of Canada and other related articles.

• I disagree here with you. In 1763, France only ceded Canada to the British Empire. Moreover, the french colonies were Terra Nova (yes, the first settlers are french), Canada, Acadia and Louisiana. I do not know where you got that Hudson Bay was french. To be more exact, two french explorers helped the Hudson Bay company to establish itself there. Finally, this story about France conceding Lousiana to Spain is unproven and there is serious reference to write it.

At its height, prior to 1713, New France included colonies in Canada, Acadia, Louisiana, and Newfoundland (or Terra Nova, or Terre-neuve, or what you will; this is the English Wikipedia so I am using the English word); in addition, France laid claim to Hudson Bay and sent several expeditions there, although no colony was established. This represented the greatest extent of French claims in North America. In the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, France ceded the mainland of Acadia (retaining Cape Breton/Ile-Royale and Prince Edward Island/Ile-Saint-Jean), Newfoundland, and gave up its claim to Hudson Bay. In 1762, France ceded western Louisiana to Spain in the Treaty of Fontainebleau. While this treaty was kept secret until after the Treaty of Paris, it did exist; here is one reference. In the following year, France ceded the remainder of Acadia, all of Canada, and Lousiana east of the Mississipi to Britain by the Treaty of Paris.

• Firstly, you underestimate the importance of the movement that led to the Patriot Rebelion. There was a memento that was sent to London signed by several very influencial persons of Lower Canada asking more effective powers and the right to control a budget from which monies could be levied. The King's response was NIET. This led to the declaration of the Republic of Canada (this idea came from the USA) which resulted in the violent repression of the rebellion where villages were burned south of Montreal and several persons killed. We should talk about that in the History part. Later, Louis Lafontaine and others managed to have a motion in helping restauration of te family who suffered from the violence of the British army. This was badly accepted by English from Montreal who destroyed the parliement that was in Montreal. Then, it moved to Ottawa and commenced a period when London would try to find a political system that would solve all the problems.

I do not underestimate the importance of the Lower Canada Rebellion, but neither do I overstate it. Along with the Upper Canada Rebellion, it led to the Durham Report and the union of the two Canadas. This in turn, through the efforts of Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, whom you mention, and Robert Baldwin, whom you do not, led to responsible government in Canada, in 1848. The 1849 Rebellion Losses Bill was passed by the Baldwin-Lafontaine government and approved by the Governor-General, Lord Elgin, even though he was personally opposed to it. This did, as you note, lead to riots and the destruction of the Parliament in Montreal. (All of this is discussed in the various articles I have linked to.) It is incorrect to say that the capital moved to Ottawa after this; in 1849, Ottawa was still Bytown. It was not selected to be the capital until 1857, and Parliament did not sit there until 1866. The government structure of the the united province eventually led to a deadlock; the Great Coalition that formed in 1864 to resolve this then became a driving force behind the movement for Confederation, which had its origins in Canada, not in London.

This whole process took almost thirty years after 1837, and included a wide range of issues, events, and personalities - many of which had little or nothing to do with the Patriotes. To write, as you did, that "as a consquence of the Patriot Revolt, in 1867, the Dominion of Canada was formed," is to ignore all of this. Your sentence, quite frankly, makes it sound as though the Patriots declared independence and formed the country of Canada, in a similar fashion to the events of the American revolution. This is wholly misleading, and this is why I removed it.

• At the end of the text, why write this part: " with which Canada has had a long and complex relationship." which is by far a partial judgment. I think that in the lead it is ncessary to mention NAFTA since this has a lot of importance.

I'm not sure what to say here. I can't imagine that anyone who has studied Canada and its history can dispute the fact that there is a long and complex relationship with the United States. And while NAFTA is a part of that relationship, it is far from the only part. I would dispute that it is even the most important part. What is significant for the introduction is the relationship between the two countries; the details - like NAFTA - can be covered elsewhere.

- Eron ^Talk 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Basque Whalers [2]

Pardon my cheek in adding a sentence to the history section, but the Basques did leave a significant mark on Canada's early history, establishing an east coast fishery and whale industry, and engaging the local natives in a fur trade. This is what eventually drew Champlain to this area. I think it adds to the narrative in linking the early explorers and Champlain's settlement attempts. Maybe I'm wrong; won't you tell me if I'm coming on too strong ... --Soulscanner 08:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point but do you have a reference to back your point ? According to The "Relations des Jesuites", not only the Basques came, but fishermen from Britanny, Ireland and France as well. Jacques Cartier wanted to explore this land on the accounts of sailors in St-Malo that may have explored the land a lot earlier, how early was a well kept secret since nobody wanted to disclose their treasure location. (Laurentien 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

I added the reference wehn I added the sentence. I think the Basques had the strongest presence, and it's backed up by archeological evidence. The article is clear that it is the Basques who controlled the fishery during this era. --Soulscanner 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to lead

Please discuss any changes to the lead on the Discussion page first as it represents a strong consensus and is likely to be reverted by one of several editors. You will likely need the consent of several editors before it goes through.

We need to come to some kind of policy to avoid contentious editing on the lead, particularly in a FA-Class article. It is a waste of energy. Any ideas? --Soulscanner 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The simplest approach might be to add a note requesting discussion first of any edits that change the content, theme, and/or overall structure of the lead. It could also explain that major changes made without prior discussion will likely be reverted and moved to the talk page. That way, minor tweaks (spelling, grammar, word flow etc.) could proceed without causing disruption, while bigger changes would be discouraged until consensus is reached. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Soulscanner 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Lede seem too dull?

It seems to me the lead contains more "and"s and "it"s than it used to. Such short words & short sentences strike me as dull. I think we've been thru this one before:

Presently:

• It extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean, and is the world's second largest country by total area.

Proposed (and previous?):

• Extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean, Canada is the world's second largest country by total area.

OR: (unless we are concerned someone might think Canada was some kind of uber-Russia [from the Pacific in the east to the Atlantic in the West?] - but then it would not be in North AMERICA, would it)

• Extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and northward into the Arctic Ocean, Canada is the world's second largest country by total area.

--JimWae 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds justified. It all sounds good. ;-) --Soulscanner 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that the writing style could use some work -- I'd describe it more as choppy than as dull -- I do not much care for that "extending" sentence structure, which seems to me like artificial embellishment of what is best stated plainly. -- Lonewolf BC 04:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So you recommend against the use of participle clauses?!? Do you have a style guide that agrees with that? I think I could find more style guides that suggest one avoid overuse of "it" and "and" --JimWae 05:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be a hasty generalisation from what I said. -- Lonewolf BC 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but you objected to the structure rather than the meaning, no?--JimWae 05:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You really need to ask? The meaning is not affected, and I said "sentence structure". The hasty generalisation would be to assume that this is a general recommendation against participle clauses, rather than a specific opinion about this instance. -- Lonewolf BC 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What about this instance makes it any different from other participle clauses? Are you expressing a personal preference or something more? --JimWae 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just read what I first wrote. -- Lonewolf BC 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IOW, keep guessing what about it is an "artificial embellishment"? --JimWae 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Justifying lead edits

Changed to: "In 1867, Confederation united three British North America colonies to form Canada. The new nation rapidly added provinces and territories, and a gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom would culminate in the Canada Act 1982 severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament."

Here's why:

• "act of union" was actually in 1840; it was "Confederation" that unified Canada
• shortens sentence on unifying colonies; it flows better too;
• I know the issue of Dominion has been beaten to death, but I don't think it would hurt to say that Confederation formed the Dominion of Canada; it would correctly identify the country at the time as part of the British Empire, and make a lot of the monarchists here happy; it would also add continuity to the Canada Act 1982 decolonizing Canada completely.
• sneaks in part about territorial expansion, explaining that Canada gets from 3 colonies to 10 provinces rather quickly; that could be lost on people not familiar with this evolution
• don't string me up by my thumbs if this is too radical a change; just hit revert of you do not like it, and we'll continue to talk here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat concur with your comments/edits, particularly regarding the situation before/after 1867 (e.g., becoming a dominion).

Relatedly, notions in the 2nd paragraph require clarification: importantly, Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867, with BNA colonies existing before that (including the Province of Canada). I wouldn't mind indicating 'The country quickly added provinces...' or similar at the end of the 2nd paragraph as before (to communicate territorial expansion, but the prior version would require 'province' to be correctly linked, I think, obviating the relevant link upfront in the 3rd paragraph.

I have also slightly changed the ordering of notions in the first paragraph: even though the 2nd sentence is now lengthy, I think it flows better.

These edits aren't a packaged deal and are not set in stone, but I do not believe the prior 2nd paragraph correctly conveyed the pre-/post-Confederation change in government structure. Thoughts? Quizimodo 18:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As above, I've made the following (what some would say substantial) edits to the 2nd/3rd paragraphs of the introduction:

• ... In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federation with dominion status. The country rapidly expanded, and a gradual process of increased autonomy from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament.

• Comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy ...

Perhaps the following is more agreeable, with a simplified last sentence of 2nd paragraph:

• ... In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federal dominion. The country rapidly expanded, and a gradual process of legal independence from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982.

• A federation now comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy ...

or perhaps more controversially, but also clearer:

• ... In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become the federal Dominion of Canada. The country rapidly expanded, and a gradual process of increased autonomy from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament.

• A federation now comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy ...

Thoughts? Quizimodo 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dominion of Canada in lede, especially capitaliZed, has always been highly contentious. Why go there in the lede, where explanation cannot be accomodated? --JimWae 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• I have long supported mention of expansion in lede. 1871 and 1873 are pretty rapid, but a full picture includes 1905 and 1949. I'd mention next (1871) & last (1949) only - or maybe only last. The provinces have taken a back-seat been stuck in the trunk for far too long in this article--JimWae 18:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Hello. No real argument regarding capitalisation: I think I have tried to accommodate (hence the current introduction and first two versions herein), while not going down the prior road. I also equivocated about how to read it -- lower case if read to convey the creation of the 'federal [nation-state] of Canada', as opposed to upper case to indicate 'federal [long-form name/title/British domain] of Canada' -- hence the change to the talk page. My basic point is that mentioning 'd/Dominion' as above may both clarify matters regarding pre-/post-Confederation changes in governance and confuse them for those who may not know what the term means (which can be alleviated by merely following the link for more information). Whatever works for most is fine with me.
  • I would support a slight expansion if it clarifies matters more, hence my edits, but nothing extreme. Also recall the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and its implications on self-government. Quizimodo 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • regarding even lower-case dominion in lede - it opens a can of worms, and by itself (without explanation or forcing users to read a link) such a rare technical term is not very informative to the uninformed reader. Maybe it's simpler to just say Canada became self-governing but was still subject to UK parliament for "some things". It is longer, but avoids forcing the ininformed to click on a link--JimWae 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Why? '[F]ederation with dominion status' or similar is pretty succinct. Links are intended to inform the uninformed and, although deprecated, 'dominion' is a valid and relevant term. What you suggest may unnecessarily complicate and add text to the introduction, when a simple link would instead suffice. Even my recent edition of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, in its entry for 'Canada' (p. 220), indicates:
        • Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867, and the last step in attaining legal independence from the UK was taken with the signing of the Constitution Act of 1982.
      • If exclusion of the term is one end of the spectrum, and inclusion of the full title ('Dominion of Canada') is another, noting that Canada is a 'federation with dominion status' or similar -- as another common, reputable publication does -- seems equitable to me. Quizimodo 19:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's one more variant, which actually notes (the formation of) Canada by name in the 2nd paragraph:

• ... In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federation with dominion status. The country rapidly expanded, and a gradual process of increased autonomy from the United Kingdom culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament.

• Comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy ...

To promote clarity, I have placed this in the article. Alternatively: 'In 1867, through Confederation of three BNA colonies, ...' Thoughts? Quizimodo 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal union

I see no reason why the insertion of a single sentence regarding Canada's personal union with fifteen other countries, specifically via the Queen, should be met with resistance; this sentence parallels a similar one at United Kingdom, and should, in my mind, be present in the government & politics sections of all Commonwealth Realm country articles to reflect the relationship between these countries.

If the sentence is, for some reason, deemed inadmissable here, whatever logic used as grounds for such a decision must then equally apply to the United Kingdom article. --G2bambino 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully - It's quite clear and undisputable- Canada's head of state Elizabeth II is also 'Head of the Commonwealth'. If it's mentioned at United Kingdom? then it should be here, Australia, New Zealand etc. Enough of this special treatment for Commonwealth member 'United Kingdom'. GoodDay 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It should not be included here because it's an esoteric point of very slight importance in relation to Canada. G. originally wanted it to be taken out of the UK article on the grounds that it "isn't relevant to the UK", but when this was promptly resisted, G. now wants to insist that the material be placed in the Canada article, also. Whether it belongs in the UK article or not is a separate issue, but it does not belong in this article just because it bothers G. that it should be in the UK article but not here. It must stand on its own merits, here.
-- Lonewolf BC 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people can change their minds; it generally involves listening to someone else's opinion, comparing it to yours, and conceding that theirs has more merit. You may not be familiar with such a thing.

It really wasn't hard for me to do; my main concern at United Kingdom was that detail being in the lead. I never did, and still don't, particularly see the sentence as absolutely imperative - the UK article could survive without it. But, it's since been rightly moved, and I do now believe it has merit in that it explains, briefly, that the UK shares its head of state. If it has such merit at UK then it has merit here, unless, of course, someone can put forward valid reason to the contrary. --G2bambino 00:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I support inclusion because of the above reason (it's at the UK article). But I also suppport it because of 2 facts - 1) Elizabet II is Canada's head of state and 2) Elizabeth II is head of the Commonwealth; those are undisputable facts. GoodDay 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There are editors who dispute the use of the term personal union to describe the relationship of Elizabeth II with her realms beyond the UK. Personally I think it fits. There is theoretically no reason why it should not be used on the Canada page as well as others. But then again, there is no particular reason why it should be used either. To the best of my knowledge it is rarely if ever used officially or unofficially outside Wikipedia to describe the relationship of the sovereign with the realms. And in the context here, it does nothing to clarify the position of the sovereign. It is not wrong; simply unecessary- a literary extravagance, if you like. --Gazzster 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Queen's son also committed adultery. He also has big ears. These are absolute verifiable facts. Trivia on the Queen is not particularly relevant in an article on Canada.--Soulscanner 03:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, mentioning that the monarch of Canada also serves as head of state of fifteen other Commonwealth countries hardly compares with an observation on the size of Charlie's ears. It is pertinent, for it puts Elizabeth II's role as Queen of Canada in a wider context.--Gazzster 03:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is about as relevant to Canada. It has nothing to do with her role as Queen of Canada. She could stop being the Queen of these countries, and it would not change her symbolic role in Canada or vice versa. It uses up valuable space that could be used for more relevant. You need a more compelling reason to add this. --Soulscanner 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we absolutely need the phrase? No. I reverted for two reasons: it does put the role of the Canadian monarch in context, which does say something about the Canadian monarchy and so is relevant, and 2)regarding the phrase as an idle piece and comparing it to tabloid trivia is an unfair assessment. Fifteen words take up 'valuable space'? If you want to substitute it with something better please do so. Again, with respect, I think you need to come up with a more compelling reason to remove it.--Gazzster 03:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Souscanner and Lonewolf on this issue; I think this fact would be better placed in a daughter article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It actually is covered in depth at Monarchy in Canada, but that doesn't necessarily make a sentence unworthy here. Are we not supposed to be giving simple statements here with detail covered elsewhere? That seems to be the general format of this article. --G2bambino 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be a stickler on this. As I said, the phrase in question is not necessary. And I'm not going to risk getting blocked for it. I do stand by 'th country is a parliamentary democracy' instead of liberal democracy, because the former is the conventional manner of labelling a Westminster model government.--Gazzster 06:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's removed here, it should also be removed at United Kingdom. Like I said, the 16 Commonwealth realms must be treated equally. GoodDay 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:I've re-started a discussion at United Kingdom, concerning the mentioning of Elizabeth II's Commonwealth role. The UK shouldn't be given special treatment, concerning this subject. GoodDay 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please find another example outside of the Commonwealth realms, where the Head of State is not resident and is also the head of state of some other countries ((except Andorra which is a bit weird in this respect))? The uniqueness of this situation seems worthy of inclusion. Jooler 20:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1714-1837, the British monarchs were also Hanoverian monarchs (Elector from 1714-1815 & King from 1815-37); 1871-1918, Prussian monarchs were also German monarchs and 1815-90, Dutch monarchs were also Luxembourg monarchs. GoodDay 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good. How about something in the 20th or even 21st century, or perhaps we should add the Roman and Mongol empires to your list. Jooler 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also Prussia was subsumed into Imperial Germany in 1871 when Wilhelm was proclaimed Emperor, they are not separate countries there was one Reichstag. Jooler 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's something: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Irish Free State from 1922 to 1937/1949. nat^tang 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You're still giving me history. Jooler 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And what's wrong with that? Why does there have to be a 'current multiple monarchy'. What's wrong with the Commonwealth example? GoodDay 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying anything's wrong with the example; I think he's stating that in the present day the personal union of the Realms is unique (aside from Andorra), and its uniqueness means the shared nature of Canada's head of state deserves a brief mention here. --G2bambino 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree (as does Jooler), the Canadian monarchs Commonwealth role should be mentioned. But other examples of 'multiple monarchies' aren't needed to back this inclusion (which is what Jooler, seems to be suggesting). GoodDay 21:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

G2 is correct. I'm saying that this uniqueness in the modern world, if nothing else, is enough to make it worthy of inclusion. Jooler 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[added simultaneously with Jooler's response above:] I don't read his words as supporting the inclusion of examples of previous personal unions; to the contrary, it seems (though he can correct me if I'm wrong) that Jooler's saying the lack of other contemporary examples is justification for the inclusion of mention of Canada's personal union with other nations via EIIR. I can see the point in that. --G2bambino 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies Jooler, I thought you arguing for exclusion (due to lack of other contemporary examples). GoodDay 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted lead to consensus version

Please discuss changes to lead and gain consensus before editing. Canda did not gain dominion status in 1907; this assertion is plain wrong. Dominion status was not recognized within the British Empire until 1907 (see reference in Dominion article); this was part of the gradual parting of the ways with Britain refered to in the article. --Soulscanner 03:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're referring to. You will note that, actually in response to your (nonconsensual) edits, I did bring this up above, with citation: 'Dominion' (as that article indicates below) was the title conferred onto Canada in the BNA Act of 1867 (AKA Constitution Act, 1867): it and other entities were collectively acknowledged as dominions through the Imperial Conference of 1907.[3] Also see Canada's name. Quizimodo 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As above, I have edited the 2nd paragraph. In further support of this -- specifically regarding clarification of the existence of 'Canada' before Confederation and the concomitant province/federation (dominion) distinction before and after -- I direct editors to the entry for 'Confederation' in the Canadian Encyclopedia, which also refers to the existence of Canada before Confederation (emphasis added):

• Confederation, the union of the British North American colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Canada (Canada being an earlier 1841 union of Lower Canada and Upper Canada), was achieved 1 July 1867 under the new name, Dominion of Canada. It was soon expanded with the addition of Manitoba and the North-West Territory (15 July 1870), British Columbia (20 July 1871), Prince Edward Island (1 July 1873), and ultimately Newfoundland (31 March 1949)....

It also elaborates refers to the country's expansion, in pleasant parallel to recent notions/edits here, so I've restored that notion/link too.

I'm flexible regarding the precise wording, but I truly believe this dichotomy must somehow be more clearly laid out than in the preceding/long-standing version. Quizimodo 16:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Then get a consensus on the talk page before changing it again. The longstanding version represents a consensus. We've been through this before. The preamble explicitly states that Canada is not to be referred to as a Dominion except in the etymology section. --Soulscanner 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you alone seem to have difficulty with the wording or notions at play. You have not adequately dealt with the points above. As well, given the passage of weeks regarding this point of contention, amidst your singular reversions to an inaccurate version without comment, it is you who is seemingly editing without consensus, stated or implied. Quizimodo 12:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the relevant talk page. I was reverting to a consensus version that had been here for years. Poll below should clarify. --Soulscanner 05:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The poll you have linked to asks what the country's name is, and thus is not really applicable to the current debate about the pre-/post-Confederation dichotomy. As well, then and now, any poll cannot -- will not -- trump information that is readily attributable to common, reliable publications. I have satisfied the burden of evidence required, you have not. Quizimodo 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "preamble" here specifically refers to the use of "Dominion" in relation to the name of the country. The paragraph in question does not speak at all about the country's name; instead it briefly outlines the country's history, part of which was July 1, 1867, when the Province of Canada united with three other colonies to become a confederated Dominion of the British Empire. Perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge of what a Dominion was, how Canada was the first of them, and/or stop treating the "preamble" as some kind of draconian bar on the word "dominion."

I've attempted, in order to dispel any concerns about readers possibly thinking that Canada remains a Dominion, to very briefly explain that Canada evolved towards statehood after 1867. It may still need tweaking, however. --G2bambino 03:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment, G. Relatedly, for our collective scrutiny, I will paste the definition of 'dominion' I placed on that article's talk page from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2004, p. 443):

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

Sense 3 is of relevance here (also see the Merriam-Webster entry for the word); thus, the word needn't be capitalised in this context.

As well, your edit regarding 'independence' sounds fine, though I prefer the prior wording (which is simpler). :) Quizimodo 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Give the lead wider attention

I've seen alot of conflict over the lead in the past while. May I suggest, if you guys want to, making a community-wide discussion about this. This may put this to bed, because it seems to have exploded into extreme analysis since the argument over including "dominion" in the lead began. If you feel necessary, add an example of an RFC request to a new section preferably something like "Request for comment: Changes in the lead". This will get the views of various editors across the community, and hopefully get some consensus on some issues. Cheers. -- Reaper X 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note - I've removed the example of an RFC from the above, as I suspect it was preventing the RFC bot from correctly parsing RFC requests elsewhere in the text. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Pronounciation"

You must include the proper IPA:pronounciation in the Article that Canada, is of "North-America" as long as it is in correct "Pronounciation" "Ah"-merica (Pertaining to their Continent) and not "A"-merica (Pertaining to the U.S.A) Intuitionz 00:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Quebec dispute

I don t see any particular reference to the Quebecois, the french speaking minority of Canada which constitute more than 25 per cent of canadians and are semi officially recognised as a nation within a nation. There are references under the entry Quebec but shouldn t it be some references for this matter under Canada also as Quebec is not just a simple province but the centre of the franch speaking canadians who might claim at some point in the future the right for self - determination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the issues around Quebec and separatism are briefly discussed in this article, with wikilinks to the appropriate main articles. Remember that this is a summary article on Canada as a whole; it should not go into detail on any subject. - Eron ^Talk 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Quebec and the Quebecois beeing the 2nd biggest province of Canada is far from being a minority itself. Specifically the french community is a minority of canada and that includes the french speakers outside quebec. Besides that, beeing in the younger 30 years old age group, you have to know that we dont want in the future, right for self determination, thoses were our father and grand-fathers. It's now clearly becoming the older generation against us... and since we are replacing more and more political positions... well, I really expect this subject to be part of history, maybe it was fitting at the time, but since then things have got better anyway and Quebec is actually doing very good right now and overall, I'm a Quebecois that thinks proudly that we bring something special of our own and that combined with everyone else in the country, all together making what Canada is... Quebec is the root of Canada where everything started and every Canadians from the early settlers, french or english, are historically or genealogically connected to quebec at some point. Actually, it's so out of context that I don't even know or remember why this came up in the past... --Slamcool 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Quebec is the largest province. GoodDay 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PS- Nunavut (though larger then Quebec), isn't a province. It's a territory. GoodDay 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point, in terms of population, it's the second. --Slamcool 19:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Canada lies in Arctica?

Taught in Canadian Schools and published on older Canadian globes and atlases, Canada lies in the Continent of Arctica. Can someone clarify why Arctica is not mentioned in the Article? Also, can someone please scan a copy of your Canadian Atlas showing Canada lying in Arctica for proof/refrence? As I have only an older globe which is unscanable due to it's form. Intuitionz 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As the ancient continent Arctica ceased to exist about 1 billion years ago, it is rather outside the scope of this article. It is discussed in Canadian Shield. - Eron ^Talk 02:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We just assume only in America it does not exist. As far as Outer-America is concerned. It does. The Country of Greenland, Russia, and Canada still recognize Artica. Shame on you! Intuitionz 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask you to please be civil if you want to discuss this, thanks very much. By the way, Greenland is not a country. And I'm fairly certain Canada doesn't "recognize" the former continent of Arctica. And what exactly is "Outer-America" anyway? - Eron ^Talk 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm Canadian and studied geography quite extensively in High School and beyond, and I have to remark that I have never heard of Canada belonging to a continent called "Arctica". There was once a pre-historic continent called Arctica billions of years ago, but it no longer exists in the capacity it once did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Subsections

I added a couple of subsection headings. These have been removed, with the note that "adding sections unneccessarily lengthens article and departs from suggested template for a country." I was asked to discuss it here before re-adding so... here I am.

The subsection headings I added were "Prehistory and European settlement" and "Twentieth century" in History, and "National Symbols" and "Sports" in Culture. No new content was added (except for a half sentence about the 1976 and 1988 Olympics to sports). I don't think that a few extra headings unnecessarily lengthen the article. In fact, given the length of the article, I think subsection headings are necessary to organize the content and make things easier to find. I have answered more than a few questions or comments on this talk page from editors who were concerned that certain things weren't discussed in the article when in fact they were. This led me to believe that the article could use a couple more headings to aid navigation.

If subheadings are not appropriate, then they all need to be removed. It is poor practice to have a heading (e.g. "History" or "Culture") with only one subheading ("Confederation" and "Language" respectively). That isn't giving structure to the article - if the sections are large enough to need breaking down, they need proper breaking down.

I'm not sure what the "suggested template" for a country is. I have reviewed a few other country articles - United States, Germany, Peoples Republic of China, Brazil, for example - and they all have sections and subsections (including in their "History" and "Culture" sections. I really don't see what the problem is here. - Eron ^Talk 02:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what Soulscanner was referring to as the template was the Country wikiproject which doesn't have any subsections. In my opinion the article looks better without subsections, and those subsections that existed before (except for the history section subsection) should be top level sections. However, I don't feel strong either way. Looking through other featured countries here is a lits of those that have subsections and those that don't:

• Have subsections: Belgium (many), Cambodia (a few), Germany (many), Libya (little more than a few), South Africa (a few), Turkey (only for history) (total: 6)
• Don't have subsections: Australia, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Chad, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Naura, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru (total: 13)

It seems like the majority of the featured articles don't have subsections. Regards, -- Jeff3000 04:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions on section headings. I guess my main point of this is that you need a very strong argument and gather a very strong consensus in order to change heading titles on a well-established article like this one. My tendency would be to delete or condense material if you find sections too long and unmanageable. For example, the sports section could be shortened to one or two sentences that provide wiki links to Sports in Canada for those wanting more information. Another matter to keep in mind is that the Contents box needs to be kept manageable. Compare, for example, the England contents box to the Australia one. --Soulscanner 06:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have read the previous discussion you linked to. I have also reviewed the countries template. In neither of those did I find any references to subsections or any statements that they should be avoided. The countries template does not show them, but that doesn'tnecessarily mean they are undesireable. I assumed they weren't mentioned because the subsection headings that might be used would differ widely across countries. I would also note that I did not "change heading titles" - I left the existing section headings exactly as they were, and in the order that they were, respecting the template structure. I simply looked at two long sections, sections which already included subsections, and added a couple more for ease of navigation and to better structure the article.

I am not wedded to the idea of subsection headings and I can certainly live without the ones I added. But if the consensus is that we shouldn't have subsections, then I think we shouldn't have any. "Confederation" and "Language" should either be promoted to sections in their own right, or deleted as headings. As it stands, the History section in particular looks odd; the Confederation subsection is in there all by itself and would lead one to believe that everything that comes after - including the whole 20th century - is part of that topic. As I said above, a section with only one subsection is indicative of a problem in the article structure that should be addressed. - Eron ^Talk 15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the confederation subsection heading looks weird, and should be removed, as well as the other subsection headings being made into full section headings. Regards, -- Jeff3000 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. There are four subsection titles right now: Confederation, in History; Law and Foreign relations and military, in Politics and Government; and Language, in Culture. I propose to delete Confederation, and to promote the other three to section titles. This would eliminate the use of subsections completely from this article. Any comments? - Eron ^Talk 01:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. -- Jeff3000 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No objections if you feel strongly about it, but I believe these represent the few specific subsections that are recommended in the countries template. I'm not married to the template, but I do recognize it as a strong argument for anyone who would wish to retain the current structure. I encourage you to review the template carefully before making any changes. It's been my experience that one editor changing sections provokes other editors to make their own, shuffling the article like a deck of cards. Please take that into account too! --Soulscanner 05:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed the article template at Wikiproject Countries. I didn't see any recommended subsections. I did see several places where the current article departs from this template - Government and politics vs Politics; Provinces and territories vs Subdivisions; Geography and climate vs Geography; and the addition of sections on Etymology and International rankings. At this point, I feel like my original edits were criticized and reverted for not following a template that the article already departs from. I also note that the main page on the Wikiproject includes the statement "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." With that in mind, I'm going to go ahead with my proposed changes. We'll see what people think. - Eron ^Talk 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

...or I would make those changes if the article weren't protected because of edit warring over "Dominion". Can't we all just get along? - Eron ^Talk 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a summary article, and per the country wikiproject, subsections should be unnecessary. That being said, some of the sections are rather bloated (e.g., 'History'), which is probably why subsections like 'Confederation' may be in place. Subsections have the advantages of making things appear more organised and of breaking up text: otherwise, users are more likely to glaze over walls of text entirely. Trim content, or (while tweaking the project guidelines) add subsections. Quizimodo 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like nothing more than to add subsections. I tried to, and was reverted and told that subsections should not be used. At this point, I just want consistency in the article. If subsections are not to be used, we should not use any. Sections with only one subsection are just wrong. - Eron ^Talk 23:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I think we should prune the 'History' and any other sections that are profuse with text: editors cannot have their cake and eat it too. :) Quizimodo 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I'm removing/upgrading those subsection headings. And then I'm going to take a close look at the History section to see if there is anything that can be trimmed. - Eron ^Talk 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Should Canada be refered to as a Dominion in lead?

I thought this issue was dealt with at a special talk page set up specifically to address this issue. Why are we going through this again?

• —Comment: Do not obfuscate -- this poll (regarding the country's name) is rather dissimilar from the current issue, stated further below. Quizimodo 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think editors can decide how similar these issues are. Let's not patronize them. --Soulscanner 09:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I'm attempting to enforce this consensus, but it seems that unless there is more clarification the lead will be subject to further contentious editing. So lets clarify:

Should Canada be referred to as a dominion in the lead?

• It seems there's a consensus here that Canada is not a dominion; that would indicate to me that it should not be referred to as such except in certain special contexts
• Clearly, it is not Canada's official name or title anymore. It is not important enough to mention in the lead.
• In 1867, dominion referred to any overseas British colony. It is redundant to say Canada became a dominion. It is enough to say that Canada (the country) was created. Now, it is just wrong to call Canda a British colony.
• The etymology clearly explains the context and history of the usage "Dominion".

---

• No - as outlined above --Soulscanner 05:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• No - this is a contentious term & should not appear in lede since lede cannot be explicit enough about what the term means, & does not mean, & whether or not the term is still applicable. Having it there can only be misleading or puzzling. Instead of In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federal dominion let's have something like Through Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were united into a single entity (or country) that was still somewhat controlled by the United Kingdom. --JimWae 08:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• wait, does this poll propose changing the current text in the part of lede "Canada became a federal dominion." is if so, I vote yes. (that text in find imo, and should remain) Otherwise, if this poll is referring to the debate to have dominion elsewhere in the lede, i vote no Brian | (Talk) 08:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian (talk • contribs)

No. This poll asks whether Canada should be referred to as a dominion in the lead given that there is a consensus that Canada is no longer a dominion (i.e. a colony) of Britain. --216.208.208.135 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC) --Soulscanner 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (Signature added, sorry for confusion)

Actually: this poll asks merely whether or not to include 'dominion' in the lead. It just so happens that it is also based on a number of assumptions which above and below have been proven to be erroneous. Is it now a British colony? Of course not. Is it a dominion, and did it become one upon Confederation? Well, yes. Quizimodo 17:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I added my signature above. My mistake. The question clearly asks if Canada should be referred to as a dominion in the lead. I was clarifying the question, and reiterating why I think it is an issue. Thanks. --Soulscanner 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you commented (anonymously) herein, but that doesn't change commentary/positioning above and below. Quizimodo 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

All I was saying is that it somewhat presumptuous to tell me what the poll was asking: I know what I what I meant to say. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• No - the term is not understood by all, and is best discussed throughout the rest of the article and not in the lead. -- Jeff3000 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, per Brian, as it is currently framed. This has been discussed, a number of options proposed, and an effective introduction is now in place. Consensus can change -- moribund (and irrelevant) polls notwithstanding, there were numerous times in the past when 'dominion' survived for lengthy periods in the lead. The instigator of this poll and naysayers have yet been unwilling or unable to reasonably persuade or demonstrate why this term, which remains in the constitution, should not be included. The prior wording was simply inaccurate: Canada existed as a colony/province before 1867, and inclusion of this term in the current context is simply a better, clearer way (much better than the contorted wording proposed by JimWae above) to explain and distinguish the federal change in organisation/governance brought about by Confederation. Moreover, in correction of misconceptions above, the Canadian Encyclopedia and other reputable sources clearly indicate that 'dominion' remains Canada's official title. In fact, the poll's instigator opened the can of worms and originally proposed including the disused long-form title (see above):

• "I know the issue of Dominion has been beaten to death, but I don't think it would hurt to say that Confederation formed the Dominion of Canada; it would correctly identify the country at the time as part of the British Empire..."

I -- who does not support including the longer title -- merely made conciliatory edits to address that, and here we are. The only editor who has reverted this notion in the last couple weeks, during which prior commentary above was unaddressed, has been the poll's instigator. Also, myself and G2bambino have pointed out that this editor seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding usage of the term. I actually reject that inclusion is contentious, based on source matter, and the burden of evidence now falls on opponents. Given the above, this poll smacks of hypocrisy (or confusion, in the least) or retaliation for being called to account. I guess it does hurt a little too much now.

And, for those who say that the term may not be understood or is somehow cryptic, that's what the piped link to the article is for -- this is a wiki. In addition to above sources, even the Canadian Oxford Dictionary describes the country as having "[become] a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867." Let's just get on with it. Quizimodo 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If people do not show up for the discussion, it does not mean that consensus has changed. I ask you to refer to wiki's policy on Asking the other parent:

A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. In this situation you may find that any changes you make to the article are quickly reverted by people outside the new talk page discussion.

In otherwords, it is up to you to make sure that people show up for the discussion, which should be on the talk page devoted to that. The comments were left unadressed and your edits reverted because there was already a consensus, arrived at after a long debate, that Canada's name was "Canada", and not the "Dominion of Canada". This was confirmed by 25 Wikipedia editors, and is clearly addressed in the Etymology section and in the preamble to this page, which have NOT been edited and hence represent a long standing consensus.

To me, that consensus would indicate to me that these edits to the lead represent a refusal to accept consensus expressed in two other places in the article, and backed up by discussions on this very topic in the archive. This poll was an attempt to clarify that, and as it stands 8 editors think these edits are contentious, 3 do not. So really, I do not see how the expressed consensus has changed: the Etymology and preamble are still there, unchanged, saying that Canada's name is "Canada". Do you or do you not accept this clearly expressed consensus?

Finally, (although I do not believe this is necessary) the Canadian Encyclopedia contradicts the Oxford reference: In 1914 the king declared war on behalf of the entire empire, but the Dominions (a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members) decided individually the nature and extent of their participation. [[4]]. In otherwords, although Dominion was used to refer to Canada, the term only described self-governing colonies between 1907 and 1948 after an Imperial conference. It is not clear what status "Dominion" conferred on Canada before then, although it's clear that the word had previously been used interchangeably with "colony". It is a vague term in 1867, and it changed meaning many times as British colonies asserted their independence. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes— I don't have a problem with how the lead paragraph reads now. It makes it clear that after 1982 Canada was in no way dependent on the United Kingdom. You could add "and is no longer considered a dominion of the UK" if it makes some feel better. —MJCdetroit 17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have placed a 24 hour protection on this article, to stop this Dominion editwarring. If people don't start working together, this article may be a candidate to lose FA status, for been a unstable article Brian | (Talk) 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Good idea -- it appears that one editor alone is jeopardising this article's status, and it isn't me. Quizimodo 14:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• No, not in the lede. The word "dominion" seems to angry up the blood in a subset of editors. I believe that its use, with respect to Canada, is appropriate in certain contexts. I also believe that the lede, given the requirement for brevity, will have difficulty providing that context. I do understand that we need some way to succinctly yet accurately describe what happened to the colonies on July 1, 1867. We can't say that they became independent, as they did not, completely. I suggest something like the following: "In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada began a gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom. This culminated in the Canada Act 1982, which severed the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament." (I'd like to sneak a reference to the Statute of Westminster in there, but I don't expect that to fly.) We can leave explaining the Dominion of Canada to the History section and the main article on Canadian confederation. - Eron ^Talk 04:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that, given the inaccuracy with the prior introduction, its current use in the introduction is appropriate and also brief. However, I believe that the sentence you have concocted is passable in the interim, though it lacks the detail of the current version. I also agree that some quick reference should be made to the Statute of Westminster, since that was an important step in the process of autonomy -- as well, I believe this can be better done in the current version, but not as easily with your proposed text. :) Quizimodo 14:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Passable"? I'm feeling damned with faint praise here. I do like a challenge, though. How about something like this: "In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada began a gradual process of autonomy from the United Kingdom. This continued with the (passage of the) Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminated in the Canada Act 1982, which ended legal dependence on the British parliament." - Eron ^Talk 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- passable, acceptable, thumbs up (grudgingly). :) Your second deluxe version as well; I've made a few tweaks. I say 'grudgingly' because neither version clearly communicates that Canada became, well, a federation/dominion in 1867. Quizimodo 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• No per EronMain. nat^tang 08:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• No- There seems to be a view in Wikipedia, across a broad range of Commonwealth related topics, that dominion is a valid term to categorise former dependencies of Great Britain. This, despite the fact that these countries do not use the term themselves, and the British government used it last in 1949. 'Dominion' was an ambiguous term; it really did not have any specific legal definition. Broadly it covered a constituent of the British Empire which might be autonomous or even independent. But there is no longer a British Empire, and without that context, 'dominion' has no meaning apart from whatever meaning the writer chooses to give to it.--Gazzster 12:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an inaccurate 'point of view' which is clearly obviated by source matter provided above --from the federal government and elsewhere -- and is perpetuated by editors who frankly do not know any better. Quizimodo 14:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I should have been clearer: I as talking of the concept of 'dominion'; not of the title of Canada. If a country chooses to use dominion as part of its title, well, that's using the term in a very specific context. But the concept of dominion, as I say, has no longer any meaning. And I respectfully point out it is not a 'point of view': it is a fact. The Empire no longer exists; the Commonwealth nations under Elizabeth II do not use it (except perhaps as an official title- which, as I have said, is in a specific context); the British government no longer uses it.--Gazzster 02:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I see no need to use the word "dominion" in the lead but I disagree with the "whereas"es in this poll. Canada is a dominion. It is a self-governing, autonomous state in the Commonwealth. Canada's title has not been replaced by anything else. In 1867, "dominion" was pretty much invented to refer to the new independent state of Canada which would, as envisioned, unite all the British North American colonies. British colonies were not referred to as dominions. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks; in general agreement, except regarding current inclusion. You might want to head on over to 'dominion' and correct the inexactitude of that article's introduction. Quizimodo 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think it is correct to say that Canada is a Dominion. It certainly was one, at Confederation. Dominion status was created at that time to describe the status of a former colony that, while self-governing, still had certain legislative ties to Britain. As Canada evolved, gradually severing those ties, the use of the term Dominion declined. Today, there are no official government documents that call it a Dominion. Yes, acts can be found that use the term, but none passed within the last fifty years or so use it. Canada, today, is a fully independent country. The term Dominion has a historical value, but does not describe the country as it exists today. - Eron ^Talk 16:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• What, then, is the designation today? The title chosen for the new confederation was "dominion" rather than "kingdom". Are we a kingdom now? We share a monarch with the UK but we are not a part of that kingdom. "Republic" obviously does not apply. "Dominion", as a self-governing, independent member of the Commonwealth is and was the correct title. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Today, I think Canada is Canada. Governmentally speaking, it is a federal constitutional monarchy, but the country is just Canada. Current use (or disuse) of the term dominion supports that. At the time of confederation there were still a number of limits to Canada's independence - limits that meant it was less than a fully independent country, but more than a colony. Those limits aren't there any more. - Eron ^Talk 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment As a number of the sources above indicate, it is in the Constitution Act, 1867 and was retained in the Constitution Act, 1982 -- 'Dominion' remains Canada's official title. The precise meaning may very well have shifted over time and since 1982, but it is wholly correct to say that Canada was and is a dominion (read: a former self-governing state (or quasi-state) within the British Empire, and a title for this self-governing state within the Commonwealth). Quizimodo 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The word "dominion" does not appear in the text of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Constitution Act, 1867 states that the uniting provinces "shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada." It further states that "the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act." As I read it, the use of "Dominion" in the first phrase describes the form of political entity - a Dominion, as opposed to a Kingdom, or a Republic -that was being created. The second states that the name of the country is Canada. I realize that this is one interpretation, and that there are others. But this is sort of my point about leaving it out of the lede - there are still differences of opinion on this, it isn't perfectly clear, and a brief introduction is not the place to open up that can of worms. - Eron ^Talk 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment You and others may disagree, and I may agree with your interpretation, but please refer to the references in my initial response above (e.g., Canadian Encyclopedia), which indicate the opposite; also see Dominion#Canada, Canada's name#Use of Canada and Dominion of Canada, and those talk pages. Quizimodo 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Accepting consensus Clearly, for a third time, you express contempt for the consensus about Canada's name. Please restrict discussion to the appropriate area. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: what consensus? I am not challenging per se what Canada's name is: I am only attempting to clarify verbiage and notions that you continue to obfuscate regarding the title and change in governance in 1867, and your incorrect representations of that information. Clearly, perhaps you should restrict discussion to the appropriate area, instead of confusing the issue and demonstrating hypocrisy. Quizimodo 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• No: This has been discussed at great length on this page, extensive research completed and consensus achieved to not use the term "dominion" in the lead. An article was established with a section on Use of Canada and Dominion of Canada. That about covers it. Sunray 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There may have been a prior poll regarding the country's name, but please point me to the consensus regarding the current notion above. In fact, not one source has been provided to dispute the assetion, and the only consensus regarding this specific notion may be revealed through this poll. However, since the original premise of the poll is rather narrow -- if not inherently flawed -- and perhaps in conflict with Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability and original research/assessments regarding the term, the results may be contestable. Quizimodo 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Please refer to the article I mentioned. It sets the case pretty succinctly. I've voted "no" and stand by that. Sunray 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm intimately aware of the article, but your answer is unsurprisingly evasive regarding other points. You are entitled to your opinion, but it limits me not. Quizimodo 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No - as per others here, a term that evokes such controversy and which is not settled should not be used in the lede.--Gregalton 18:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

:No - if 'Dominion' is going to cause this much disruption, then it's best to omit it. GoodDay 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - Canada was a Dominion after 1867, that's a fact. Question is, when did it ceased to be a Dominion. GoodDay 21:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Arguably, only one editor has been disruptive -- shall we omit that person too? Quizimodo 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm too lazy to check the 'history' of this article; Who's the editor in question? GoodDay 20:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment By the way, when did Canada ceased to be a Dominion? GoodDay 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply Well, Canada actually never official declared that it was no longer the "Dominion of Canada", The government just began to drop reference to the name Dominion in the late 1950s and I think the name was removed from our currency the same time the loonie was introduced. nat^tang 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The name was removed from the currency long before the loonie. I've got a couple of Centennial dollar bills and there is no Dominion to be found on them. - Eron ^Talk 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominions status only existed within the British Empire between 1907 and 1948, after which the dominions became Commonwealth Realms. [5] --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - with attention paid to proper context, there's no reason to banish the word "Dominion" from the lead, which is a completely different issue to the lead asserting the country is named "Dominion of Canada." As Quizimodo has rightly pointed out, Soulscanner has confused this issue by focusing on the latter as opposed to the former, and has thus undermined this vote from the get-go. --G2bambino 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I remind you to assume good faith, and follow Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Soulscanner has not undermined the vote, and my reading of the majority of the comments above is that regardles of Canada is/was a dominion (small 'd') that most believe that it is complicated enough that it is best not to introduce it in the lead and let it be explained in the ariticle. -- Jeff3000 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for the "reminding," unecessary as it is. The vote is indeed undermined when the person who opened it clearly misunderstands the distinction between saying the country is presently a Dominion (captal "D"; we know it still is a small "d" dominion) or that the country's name includes the word "Dominion," and saying the country became a Dominion upon confederation. Nobody's tried to assert either of the former two, only the latter; so why have this particular vote - again - at all? To say such, and ask such, is neither a personal attack nor an assumption of bad faith; it is merely pointing out a misunderstanding and questioning the consequences of it. --G2bambino 15:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confusing no issues, although I recognize that the issue is not clear in all people's minds; this poll is precisely to clarify the issue. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, why then the unecessary pointing out that Canada is not now a Dominion, Canada's name is not "Dominion of Canada", etc., etc.? Nobody's clamed the contrary in this case. --G2bambino 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I've reviewed the comments and given this a lot of thought. As G2bambino notes, there is a big difference between describing Canada's status as a dominion at the time of Confederation, and using Dominion as part of the name of Canada. I have made a couple of attempts to revise the key sentence for this without using the D word. Here's a version that includes it:

"In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a self-governing dominion. This began a gradual process towards autonomy from the United Kingdom, continuing with the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act 1982, which ended legal dependence on the British parliament."

This clarifies Canada's status in 1867 (not a colony, not quite independent) and highlights the key feature of dominion status (self-government) without making any claims as to what Canada is or should be considered today - i.e. it puts the use of the term dominion in the correct historical context. (I hope.) - Eron ^Talk 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

*Comment Well, it doesn't. Dominion up to 1867 referred to any overseas colony. Hence "One Dominion under the name of Canada" could mean "One Colony under the name of Canada". It wasn't until 1907 that dominion explicitly referred to self-governing colonies (See Canadian Encyclopedia [6]), giving dominions a 'status'. Did this change the defintion retroactively? The question is inane. In 1919, these self-governing colonies signed a peace treaty. In 1931, these dominions became independent. In 1948, they would be renamed Commonwealth Realms to escape the colonial stigma of the word dominion, and the word lost any legal meaning. People referred to Canada as a Dominion out of colonialist nostalgia, and those who emphasized Canada's independence called it Canada. See references on dominion page. The term is complex and vague, and meant different things at different times. Also, saying that Canada became a Dominion in 1867 is either meaningless, redundant, or both because it's constituent colonies were in fact all dominions, even in the sense that they were all self-governing. There is also no firm definition of what is meant by this "title". That is why it is best left to have this vague term to the Etymology and the article Dominion where this vagueness can be discussed in detail.

Since most people here find the word is a) contentious, b) unfamiliar c) vague, is a clear indication that the word is antiquated and out of common use. This fact is backed up in the Etymology section and on the dominion page, which represents an established consensus. The word thus seeds more confusion than clarity; instead, colony, self-governing colony or independent country should be used, as appropriate. Emphasizing the word Dominion would be pushing a marginal monarchist POV by giving the word more prominence than it deserves and perpetuate a falsehood that the word is generally understood (I think this whole dsicussion pretty much proves that point).

As for it being a "big" difference between the two questions, I think the difference is small and largely academic. The two contentious editors that stand pretty much alone in their insistence on including the D-word in the lead also express continued contempt for the consensus about "Canada's name", indicating strongly that this is largely an extension of that arguement. One editor has now shown clear bad faith (see above). --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The title "Dominion" wasn't used prior to 1867; it was coined specifically for Canada in 1867 and then was applied to the other areas of the Empire that followed Canada's example in becoming self-governing. This would be because these other countries became what Canada already was; what you suggest, Soulscanner, somewhat puts the cart before the horse.

Beyond that, it's rather disingenuous of you to assert that I am both contentious and contemptuous. I have valid reason for arguing against the censorship of a historically and contextually accurate word simply because of embarassment and confusion, and yet I have never once - nor ever would - cause issue over Canada's name. Perhaps you should check your facts more closely. --G2bambino 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try keeping it simple and based on facts and clear definitions that can be commonly understood and accepted without reference to esoteric references to colonial history:

"In 1867, Canada was founded when [[Canadian Confederation|Confederation] united three British North American colonies to form a federation. A gradual process of independence/ culminated in the Canada Act 1982 severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament.

It's concise, short, gets the main idea across, and contains no vague or ambiguous terms, and is completely factual. --Soulscanner 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the reference you provide, and I do not believe that it supports your contention that "it wasn't until 1907 that dominion explicitly referred to self-governing colonies." You linked to the Commonwealth article in the Canadian Encyclopedia; it speaks of "the Dominions (a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members)" (emphasis added). This suggests that its use to define a self-governing colony originated with Canada in 1867, and that the term was generalized to other self-governing colonies later. The Canadian Encyclopedia article on dominion states that the term was suggested by Sir Leonard Tilley when the British government balked at the suggested title "Kingdom of Canada". The term dominion does not appear to have been used in reference to any colony prior to 1867.

I can see both sides of the argument for including or not including the term. It is correct to say that Confederation joined three provinces in a federation. It is also correct to say that it joined them in a dominion - this is the exact word used in the BNA Act: "shall form and be one Dominion" - not "one Federation". The term federation is descriptively correct, and arguably clearer and more common. That said, the use of the term dominion to describe a political entity was a new Canadian coinage and is historically significant - so perhaps it is not out of place in the lead as a distinguishing feature of the new country.

I'll also restate my desire to include the Statute of Westminster as an intermediate step on the road to independence between 1867 and 1982. In terms of real national independence, 1931 was far more significant than 1982. - Eron ^Talk 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been misled that it is a coinage of Canada. Please read the article Dominion. It's references clearly state that the colonies of Virginia and New England were both given the "title" of Dominion way before Canada, and neither was remotely self-governing. The term applied to Canada, but it meant nothing. The three colonies were already self-governing, and not referred to as Dominions. Australia was refered to as a Commonwealth when it was federated, and had no less or more independence than Canada. There is no reference that the title Dominion conferred a new status on Canada until 1907, when a Dominion was for the first time defined as a self-governing colony. Even at this time, the British purposely did not include that definition in any constituional document. Click here for a complete referenced discussion of the term as it pertains to Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The 'filibusters' website is some person's concoction and, thus, without authority. Conversely, in addition to other sources provided, I'll direct you to How Canadians Govern Themselves by Eugene Forsey, a common primer/publication produced by the federal government (and posthumously credited), pages 8-9... Quizimodo 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• No. Despite the fact that Canada is still "One Dominion" -- that section of the Constitution Act 1867 has not been superseded or annulled -- and my personal fondness for the term, the meaning of "dominion" has never been clearly defined; and it has shifted with time and is subject to a lot of personal interpretation. The lead of such a large and important article has to be as clear and brief as we can make it. Adding "dominion" to the lead takes away from clarity, because of all the conflicting interpretations people have of the word. It is however entirely appropriate to include a brief discussion of "dominion" in the History section, with a "see Canada's name", the right place for a full exposition. Indefatigable 13:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Canada becoming a 'federal dominion' or 'federation with dominion status' in 1867, appropriately linked, is crystal clear and succinct. (Note that the proposal is to clarify the ambiguous prior sentence in the 2nd paragraph regarding what arose from Confederation, not the upfront notation of 'country'.) And while personal interpretations are abound, particularly in this discussion, Wikipedia isn't the place for that -- that's why we prevail upon reputable citations which, in support of the above, are in abundance. Quizimodo 13:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Quizimodo states that 'dominion' status is crystal clear; the dominion article leads with the sentence that a dominion 'was a self-governing colony or autonomous state.' Well, which was it? Dominion status seems to be the very paragon of ambiguity, rather than clarity, which is precisely the problem.--Gregalton 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment No: the problem is the editor who added that tidbit to the 'dominion' article and has catalysed the current rigmarole amidst confusion and conflation. Perhaps you should direct your queries appropriately. The lead of that article, as with others like this one, can stand for improvement ... but that is no reason to block usage of the term in this context. Quizimodo 20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it is a Dominion under the Crown. Its title as 'Dominion' was never repealed. It is a legal description of the Canada. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• No we should use the name used by the government of Canada, which has been, since Louis St-Laurent, simply 'Canada'. This is reflected by a number of changes over the years, such as the renaming of Dominion Day to Canada Day, culminating in the Canada Act of 1984, which repatriated the Canadian constitution, severing the last Canada's last tie to the British government. The only name mentioned in this document is 'Canada', with no mention of dominion. The word dominion does not appear on official documents from the government, on the currency or in legislation. I don't understand why there is any debate, or room for debate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desthc (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• No The term is no longer in use...--Padraic 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Question: when does this irrelevant poll close? It's been nearly a month now, and the comments left by most voters indicate that the actual issues under consideration were not taken into account. --G2bambino 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)