Talk:Canada/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

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

Lede or Lead?

Several people have been referring to "the lede." It seems to me that they must mean "the lead". Sunray 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The same thought crossed my mind: 'lede' -- which doesn't have an entry in at least one common dictionary -- seems to be a neologism. Quizimodo 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The term lede is explained here. The terms are essentially interchangeable. - Eron ^Talk 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, OK. Are you leading me on? Assuming we are not as dense as lead, who will take the lead in editing the lead? ;) Quizimodo 00:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I wundered about this as well, lede/lead. Thought it was some latin term. GoodDay 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Lede" is a fairly common spelling in journalism and publishing; for example, it helps in those contexts to distinguish between the "lead" story, the one that's at the top of Page One with the big blaring WAR IN OCEANIA headline, from the "lede" paragraph of DOG BITES MAN on Page 99. The two spellings are basically interchangeable outside of publishing industry jargon, though. Bearcat 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of word 'dominion' in lead compromises neutrality of article

I now accept that using "Canada" in lieu of "Dominion of Canada" does not extend to referring to the country as a dominion as I originally thought. I do not accept it as consensus as many here may disagree. Even though a majority here wish to see the term omitted, a more extensive arguement is required to build a consensus and justify it. I was hoping to avoid getting into a long-winded debate on the issue and settling it quickly so as not to jeopardize the FA-rating of the article, and I apologize for having to write such a long edit, but it seems necessary.

The word dominion seriously compromises the neutrality of the article. Most of the reasons for excluding it [ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/dominion.htm can be found by clicking here]. I'll summarize this link, and offer more references.

• 1. The word is contentious among editors - The word has been subject to longstanding debates among editors to the point that by consensus both it's usage and its discussion (in certain contexts) has been referred to other pages (see preamble to article and [Talk:Canada%27s_name Discussion of Canada's official name]. It is also a reasonable proposition that many wanted the name dropped precisely because they disagree that Canada should be referred to dominion, as they no longer thought of it as such. A strong majority of editors polled above have also agreed that the term is contentious for various reasons. Although this doesn't show that there is a consensus that "dominion" should not be used in the lead, these facts needs to be taken into consideration when building consensus.
• 2. The term is archaic - Britain officially stopped using the word "Dominion" in 1948 and has used "Commonwealth Realm" since. The Canadian government deliberately gradually stopped using it because it had colonial overtones, implying submission to the British Monnarch. Modern texts and scholars no longer use it to describe Canada. Young Canadians don't even know the word exists. The word is so rarely used that editors on this page are not sure what it means.
• 3. The term is ambiguous and disputed among scholarly sources - Those claiming that dominion was coined especially for Canada are wrong. The word has and is regularly used to mean a generic territorial possession of a monarch, interchangeable with kingdom. Various legal and academic sources between the 1653-1911 prove this, and show that this generic sense of the word continued way beyond confederation:

a) Instrument of Government, 1653[1]

“The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging.

I. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people assembled in Parliament; the style of which person shall be the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

II. That the exercise of the chief magistracy and the administration of the government over the said countries and dominions, and the people thereof, shall be in the Lord Protector ... "

b) Treaty of Utrecht 1713[2] refers to dominions as generic territories 24 times, for example:

"Moreover, the most Christian King promises, as well in his own name, as in that of his heirs and successors, that they will at not time whatever disturb or give any molestation to the Queen of Great Britain, her heirs and successors, descended from the aforesaid Protestant line, who possess the crown of Great Britain, and the dominions belonging therunto."

c) The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) [3] refers to all African possessions (which were not self governing) as dominions. A few examples:

i) "... on the 23rd of April 1895 Tongaland was declared by proclamation to be added to the dominions of Queen Victoria ... "

ii) "... Lord Salisbury obtained from Germany the recognition of a British protectorate over the dominions of the sultan of Zanzibar, including the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba"

iii) "... British officials exercised considerable power at the court of Zanzibar, which indeed owed its separate existence to a decision of Lord Canning, the governor-general of India, in 1861 recognizing the division of the Arabian and African dominions of the imam of Muscat."

Given that these are authoratitive sources, counter examples will only prove that the term is academically and legally ambiguous and contentious.

• 4. The term pushes a marginal monarchist POV - The term was traditionally used and defended by monarchists (Tories or Conservatives) who wished that Canada would keep strong ties to Britain, and opposed by those wishing that Canada loosen or cut these ties (Liberals and CCF). Monarchism is now a spent political force, and marginal even within the Conservative party. Including their preferred terms overweights a marginal POV.
• 5. The term adds nothing to the article - As it is imprecise and contentious, keeping the term adds nothing to the quality or clarity article. There is nothing that can be conveyed by the term that cannot be conveyed by "colony" or "self-governing colony". Either way, British North American possessions were all colonies and all self-governing (see Responsisble Government), so Confederation did not change anything to drastically in this regard. The term confuses even Canadians; imagine what it does to those who know nothing about Canada.
• 6. "Kingdom" was the first choice of the Fathers of Confederation - As stated in the Etymology, Canadians thought of Canada as a Kingdom, so that "dominion" can be used interchangeably with this term. The King we're talking about is the British Monarch, and the dominion we're talking about is clearly his. There's no evidence that Canadians thought they were getting more indepenednce with this designation. They did think they were extending the Sovereignty of the King (i.e. his dominion) over a larger area.
• 7. Canada asserted it's independence by what it did in the early 1900's, not by calling itself a dominion - It was Laurier after 1896 that really asserted Canada's independence in foreign affairs. Other colonies wanted the same degree of autonomy, and hence wanted to be called a Dominion. It is Canada's actions that conferred any "status" upon the word, not the "title" itself.
• No legal document says that Dominion conferred any extra independence before 1931 - The British purposely never recognized that Dominion conferred any autonomous legal status until the Statute of Westminster clarified this. That is why most historians consider 1931 as the year Canada gained its independence.
• 8. The main point of Confederation was the formation of a federation - It's Confederation, not Dominionization. The word Confederation predated any mention of Dominion in the 1860's. Moreover, the word and status of "Dominion" has not survived history as a meaningful way of describing Canada. The division of power between federal and provincial governments has and continues to be very important. The federalism is hence more important than whatever and unspecified and equivocal powers the already self-governing colonies of British North America were given in 1867.

To conclude, dominion is a contentious, archaic, and ambiguous term when referring to Canada in the lead and adds nothing to the clarity and quality of the article. It overweights a marginal monarchist POV. Eight people here (so far) agree that it is contentious and should be removed. Given its prominence in the lead, there is good grounds to say that it makes the neutrality of the article disputed. An editor could reasonably tag this article as such. That would be a shame because many here (including myself) have put considerable effort into adding to the body of the article and condensing it without any contentious editing. It would be a shame to have all this work undone by a small group of editors who have added nothing but edits to the lead and reams of text on the talk page. As such, I have changed the word federal dominion to federation. If it is changed back, I will consider asking an administrator if this longstanding debate puts this article's neutrality in jeopardy. Intellectual honesty demands it. I also suggest considering moving any further discussion of this subject to the dominion article, as was done with the debate concerning Canada's name. --Soulscanner 08:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. I would like to add that logic does not demand that one agree with all of Soulscanner's points to agree that Dominion should not figure in the lead - it's too complex and nuanced an issue for that space. For the same reason, I believe the sentence that begins "gradual process of independence" is slanted. The current version implies that independence was only finally achieved in 1982.--Gregalton 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your point of view. Logic may not demand complete concurrence (and I may agree with some of the points), but I see few sources to support some of those points, either. It is odd that crutches of the offender's argument -- opinion -- are a misread (or misunderstood) citation from the Canadian Encyclopedia (highlighted by Eron) and the above noted 'filibusters' subpage of a blog which has no authority whatsoever. All the while, not one but several reliable sources (e.g., by the federal government) have been provided to support both the currency of the term and its appropriateness in this context, and many deprecate or ignore them. There is something very wrong with this -- more later.

Regarding the nuanced nature of 'dominion', that is why it and terms both complex and not are pipe linked -- that is part of their purpose (to "provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic") 'Federation' is also a nuanced term, just as 'Confederation' is in the Canadian context (as opposed to the usual reckoning).

As for the nonconsensual change to 'federation': sorry, these discussions aren't over. And, frankly, I would welcome an administrator to intervene or arbitrate. Quizimodo 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. A number of people have argued against the use of the word "domininon" in the lead because the term is somehow too complex, and thus confusing. However, at the same time, nobody claims "federation," "confederation," or even "country" are contentious because of potential to be confusing to uninitated readers. It seems what's perplexing to some here is deemed by them to be perplexing to everyone, when that may not be the case, or even of much importance. --G2bambino 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note it's not just too 'nuanced' a term (perhaps that was too indirect) - the two meanings of dominion as piped are contradictory: it's either a country or a colony. Well, which is it? This 'ambiguity' (contradiction) is simply inappropriate in the lead.--Gregalton 20:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, G2: add to that 'nation' (Quebecois?), state, and (perhaps here more so than usual) 'province'

Gr, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia:

• Dominion refers primarily to Dominion of Canada (Constitution Act, 1867, preamble and s3). The Fathers of Confederation wanted to call "the new nation" the Kingdom of Canada. The British Government feared this would offend the Americans, whom, after the stresses of the American Civil War, it was most anxious not to antagonize. It insisted on a different title. Sir Leonard Tilley suggested "dominion": "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth" (Psalm 72:8). The Fathers said it was intended to give dignity to the federation, and as a tribute to the monarchical principle. The word came to be applied to the federal government and Parliament, and under the Constitution Act, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title.

and, according to the Oxford Canadian Dictionary, (2004, p. 443; emphasis added)

• 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]

And that's Commonwealth of Nations.

That settles that. So, where's the contradiction? It's all a matter of context. In 1867, Canada became a federal dominion; the title was later applied to refer to self-governing entities within the British Empire and then the Commonwealth. If anything, the 'Dominion' article introduction (as I've maintained) must be corrected. The term may be nuanced, but inadequacies of the 'Dominion' article or in editorial comprehension regarding the term are allayed through proper sourcing, and should not be used as justification to perpetuate inadequacies in this one. Quizimodo 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine that it settles it for you, but the majority of editors here believe, including myself, that for most readers, it is a confusing term that should be left out of the lead, and be better explained in the main text. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

t doesn't settle it for me per se, but extrapolations about meanings beyond source matter don't belong. I cannot speak for your confusion, not to mention subjective judgement, but this is not a majoritarian exercise. And, as demonstrated above, a clutch of terms are equally ... confusing. If you wish to open further the can of worms, don't be surprised if a mess results. Quizimodo 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of Wikipedia is gaining consensus, and the use of the term dominion does not have any consensus in the lead. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is currently no consensus to remove it, either. And, since the burden of evidence has been satisfied regarding this point, it is up to naysayers to respond in kind. I see a sh*tload of commentary, but few if any relevant citations to support opposition -- please provide. Quizimodo 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although this is not a majoritarian exercise, the edits of two contentious and determined editors does not constitute a consensus either. A majority is especially important to consider especially when it comes to considering current usage of language, especially when supported by facts.

So lets separate fact and opinion here:

* It is a fact that the term is contentious. That is why separate articles have been created to discuss it, and eight editors polled here oppose using the term. You do not need a scholarly reference to see that, although several references have been given that back up their judgement on the issue.

• The term is artificially contentious: point me to one salient reference which says so. If you (and other editors) cannot or will not reconcile the available information and apply it as needed, that is not my -- our -- problem. This is an encyclopedia, which by design is a comprehensive compendium of information, explaining why multiple articles exist regarding topic matter. Quizimodo 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

* It is a fact that the word is ambiguous; the Encyclopedia Britannica entry above clearly contradicts the dictionary entries given. In particular, it is a fact that at the time of Confederation (and centuries before and for decades afterward), the word dominion was used generically to refer to any colonial possession of Britain and other monarchies. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that in 1867 that the title dominion was adopted to confer any extra autonomy to Canada. The evidence given in the etymology and the Canada's name page indicates the exact opposite.

* It is a fact that the term is archaic in many important contexts. It appears on no legal documents written since the 1950's. It is no longer used by most Canadians and international bodies to refer to Canada. Within the Commonwealth, Dominions have been explicitly referred to as Commonwealth Realms since 1948. This was well established in the long discussion over Canada's name.

• Agreed: the term is archaic/historical in many important contexts, but this is not one of them. Quizimodo 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

* It is a fact that term is used mostly by monarchists when used to describe Canada. It is also a fact that monarchists are now marginal in Canada. If someone wishes to challenge this assertion, I will provide references. It is my opinion that these facts support the assertion that including "dominion" gives the article a monarchist POV.

• Please provide these references. Currently, I can't comment on the prevalence of monarchists any more than I can on the prevalence of republicans. The 'filibusters' blog website is not, in any sense of the word, reliable, though there are some notions which seem/are agreeable. As stated far above, including 'Dominion of Canada' in the lead would be a monarchist POV (which I would not support), omitting it completely (which numerous editors are insistent on) is a republican POV, which is somewhat misplaced given that the current state remains a constitutional monarchy with Betty its de jure head of state. (For those who invoke currency as a standard for whatever, she appears in effigy on coinage and the $20 bill, no?) Thus, merely iterating what the constitution indicates regarding the polity that materialised in 1867 is simply an equitable and verifiable 'POV'. Other assertions are opinions just the same. Quizimodo 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

* It is my opinion, given the above facts, that including dominion in the lead compromises the neutrality of the article.

* It is my opinion that using the word dominion is not necessary. The entire article below is written without using the word dominion, except to explain it's archaic usage. I think that makes sense since it will appear on old historic texts, while explaining why it's usage is now very rare.

* In my opinion, it would have been better to discuss the inclusion of the word dominion in the lead because it is so contentious. There is a clearly stated preamble to the article that explicitly limits the use of the word. That represent a strong consensus on the contentiousness of the word. The process for changing the consensus is documented, and it has not been followed here when the word was introduced without any discussion whatsoever. Hence, the burden of evidence is clearly on editors who wish to introduce the term. I do not submit this as a fact, but as an interpretation of the preamble that establishes my good faith in the edits. I will continue to edit this page based on this interpretation.

--Soulscanner 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am - and have been - on the fence on this. I can see both sides of the argument. The term dominion is not meaningless with respect to Canada. Whatever its other uses, it was, for much of Canada's first century, a recognized term and title for the country. I do not agree that it is POV to acknowledge this, to use the term appropriately in its historical context. I could argue to the contrary, that efforts to eliminate references to the historical use of the term dominion are POV - a sort of retroactive republicanism.

That said, I also recognize that the lead needs to be clear and simple, and if using dominion in the lead does not add clarity or simplicity then it should be avoided. (I'm not entirely convinced that it doesn't, but we should perhaps err on the side of caution with that.)

As to the "gradual process of independence", this is why I have proposed adding a reference to the 1931 Statute of Westminster. Regardless of what we call it, Canada in 1867 was not fully independent of Britain. The bulk of the work to move towards independence, through the establishment of an independent foreign policy and a fully independent judiciary, was achieved by 1931. The last outstanding detail - achieving the power to independently amend the Constitution - was taken care of in 1982. It should be possible to describe that fairly succinctly. - Eron ^Talk 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat a point made above: the dominion article leads by saying dominion was used for an entity that "was a self-governing colony or autonomous state". This is not clarity. And I see your point on independence, but saying 'was not fully independent' is an accurate reflection of ambiguity; 'a gradual process of independence ... culminated in 1982' implies (to me) that independence was achieved in 1982. I would argue that independence existed in 1867 (e.g. power to self-govern and sign treaties), with vestiges of dependence remaining - you say tomato, etc. Regardless, it is a fine point and all I am arguing is that a) simplicity and clarity in the lead is the priority; and b) given the ambiguities, the nuances should be left for the body further down. The phrase about independence and Canada's tortured constitutional history can just be left out.

How 'bout "In 1867, Confederation united Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a federation, with each becoming a province. Subsequent practical and legal changes gradually eliminated the vestiges of dependence on the UK government and parliament."? Just an attempt...--Gregalton 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That is something that could work; my own attempt is below. - Eron ^Talk 15:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for the lead

We now have several concurrent polls, discussions, and whatnot surrounding one sentence in the lead. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I also think that absent a strong consensus in favour of using dominion in the lead, we need to leave it out of there. Given the controversy over the term, it should be used only where the appropriate context can be provided. That said, I'm not wild about some of the other options. So I took a stab at revising the whole second paragraph:

The territory of Canada has been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, the British and French explored and later settled the Atlantic coast, moving inland to the Great Lakes. France ceded most of its North American colonies to Great Britain in 1763, after the Seven Years War. In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada. As other colonies joined the new country, Canada moved to full independence through the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The Canada Act 1982 ended the last dependence on the British parliament.

This draft will probaby satisfy no one completely, as I've managed to avoid using both dominion and federation. That was sort of the point. It's a compromise that states the one thing that - I think - we can all agree on: on July 1, 1867, a country named Canada was formed. - Eron ^Talk 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A very fine effort in the best spirit of compromise. My only nit-picking request would be to remove (somehow) the phrase "full independence" (or independence at all), likely by combining the last two sentences. Personally, although I think Westminster massively important (more so than the Canada act), reference to it could be removed from the lead (and let the main text speak for itself). Or, rephrase the second sentence to "...Canada's government took on direct responsibility for conduct of foreign policy and other matters, notably in Statute of Westminster."--Gregalton 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see the argument for removing Westminister from the lead, but if it goes then the Canada Act has to as well; as you note, the former was far more significant, at least in terms of the functions of an independent country, then the mostly symbolic Canada Act. I agree with your earlier point that having just the 1982 act in there makes it look like Canada wasn't really independent until that point, when - in all important respects - it had been since 1931. I'll think about it, and see what others have to say as well. - Eron ^Talk 15:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If Westminster can be worked in without implying independence happened in 1982, I can live with it. I would prefer the question of independence be left out (too complex for lead). I would argue Canada has been independent since 1867 (subject of international law in all important respects, viz founding member of League of Nations, embassies, etc., not necessarily coincident with Westminster), but that many of these powers were not formalised (wouldn't even have known how to use them) and there was little foreign policy to speak of. In a bit of a simplistic comparison, I would argue that the fact that I know nothing about my car and let my mechanic make all decisions in practice does not mean I renounce the right to make those decisions, should I learn what a carburetor is or what to do with it.

This is all tied up with changing international practice (the counter-argument to my League of Nations point is that Belarus was a member of the UN, despite quite clearly lacking other features of independence), ambiguous status of British Empire at this point, new concepts of nationality and a war or two being fought on these lines in a few places (the word 'independence' would likely have been associated with 'secession' in the context of the US civil war), unclear views of Canadians themselves, etc. The issue of "independence" or Canada's status as a 'dominion' (and what exactly that implied, if anything) were fudged and avoided, to some degree intentionally, to some degree because the questions weren't meaningful in the same way. Soit. All the more reason to avoid for the opening making judgments that can be argued either way by reasonable people. Another example on the subject is that there was no Canadian citizenship under law until 1949 or so (many countries had not formalised the concept). There was case law, there was an understanding of what "Canadian" meant - the modern conception of citizenship simply does not correspond fully. Applying the modern concept is an anachronism.

But you had it right when you said "a country named Canada was formed."--Gregalton 19:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All good points, though key elements of international relations were beyond Canadian control in the years after Confederation. The history of the Department of Foreign Affairs notes that "The union of the four British North American colonies... created a country that could best be described as a semi-autonomous member of the British Empire. Canada's original constitution, the British North America Act, said nothing about the conduct of international relations except to affirm Canada's duty, "as Part of the British Empire," to fulfil the obligations incurred under treaties between the Empire and foreign countries. The conduct of diplomacy, it appeared, was to be the preserve of British statesmen." No Canadian diplomats existed until the first High Commissioner to Britain was appointed in 1880, followed by a representative in Paris in 1882. The department itself wasn't created until 1909. Most telling of all, when Britain declared war on Germany in 1914, there was no debate in Canada: we were in it, no declaration required. But I agree that these are subtleties, and independence is a fairly unsubtle word. "Autonomy" has been suggested; that might work:

• As other colonies joined the new country, Canada moved to full autonomy through the 1931 Statute of Westminster, with the Canada Act 1982 ending the last vestige of dependence on the British parliament."

- Eron ^Talk 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think all the suggestions above are appropriate. I thank EronMain and Gregalton for their useful and constructive work. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I commend attempts at reworking the paragraph, but aren't we going a bit overboard? I mean, only two words/one sentence is at issue. Perhaps something as follows (heavily borrowed from one of Eron's versions, with tweaks):

• The lands have been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast. France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763 after the Seven Years War. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federal 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.

or replace 'federal dominion' with 'federation with dominion status' or 'semi-autonomous federation OR territory (within the British Empire)'. Thoughts? Quizimodo 22:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: your proposal still has dominion. In the lead. Which is what was being discussed/polled. (Granted, until I confused things by complaining about the sentence immediately after). So, no. Dominion does not garner the support to retain (only in the lead, mind), because in the opinion of many it is not sufficiently clear to non-specialists.

Honestly, I do not have religion on the dominion issue either way, but this long discussion demonstrates that the subject is controversial enough to not use the word in the lead - only for brevity and simplicity. Why is it so important to have it in the lead?

Most wikipedia readers - those non-Canadians, NOT raised in an atmosphere of quiet pride in bizarre trivia, kept warm through the long winter by the eternal flame of minor constitutional disputes, and instructed on the finer points of conversation-stopping by long diatribes about the dwindling usage of the Red Ensign - should not have to consult a dictionary or Canadian encyclopedia to read the first three paragraphs of the article and understand what Canada became in 1867 (if anything). Those daring enough to read on must fend for themselves and mind the undertow of the talk page.--Gregalton 04:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And, yet, as has been rightly pointed out, "confederation," especially in the Canadian context, proves as equally confounding to those poor sods you describe. Still, you supported Eron's proposal above. Why do we have faith that readers will comprehend one nuanced word but not another? How do we decide what others, whom we don't even know, can and cannot do?

Canada became a number of things on July 1, 1867. One was a federation; that much is clear. The other was a Dominion. Yes, there were areas called the "Dominion of ..." before that date. But, none were ever what Canada turned into on that day 33 years before the turn of the 20th century, which was a unique entity that had never existed in the Empire before.

Confederation is a complex concept to grasp. Dominion status is a complex concept to grasp. However, I'm starting to see here that the dance around these terms is what's truly most perplexing. Need we really go to such acrobatics just to avoid saying what actually happened and actually was?

For instance, the article United Kingdom describes, in the second paragraph of the preamble, the UK as "comprising four constituent countries." Who uses "constituent country" in general parlance? But, that's what the UK is made up of, and nobody's trying to hide it over there.

Let's not let perceived ignorance or stupidity guide our actions here. --G2bambino 04:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to dispute the use of the word confederation here, go ahead; my comments apply to dominion, which is the point of the discussion. (I don't agree about the difficulty with the word confederation, nor that it has any potential POV implications, but that is a separate discussion). The point of the above is that lots of people who are neither stupid nor ignorant would have no idea what dominion means in the Canadian historico-constitutional context (and given the copious and vehement discussion here, presumably amongst people who care enough to get exercised about it, there should be no expectation that even a relatively well-informed individual would), and such an individual may misunderstand or misattribute meaning.

The comparison with constituent country is weak: country is self-evident, constituent is a straightforward word: "being a part, or component of a whole." Combining the two does not make the statement more complex. However, if you wish to dispute THAT point, it is a point for the UK article, not this one, and in no way settles the point. (Perhaps the terminology of the Britney Spears article is confusing, but that's not relevant either).

The lead should be short, simple and clear, and dominion - as noted and supported by this lengthy discussion - is not clear.--Gregalton 07:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there's an attempt to block the usage of a particular word here because it will supposedly cause readers issue due to their ignorance of the subject; thus, the choice of that which stays and that which goes is apparantly based on personal perceptions of what absolute strangers can and cannot understand. The example of "confederation" plays easily into this argument, and, in fact, greatly undermines it, because it is, also within the Canadian historico-constitutional context, a word with as much a specific and sublime meaning as that of "dominion." So, unless one can proove that Wikipedia readers can grasp the word "confederation" much more easily than "dominion," the reasoning for excluding "dominion" comes down to one possibility: it invokes emotional reaction in certain individuals. Are we really going to edit out a word for political correctness?

I'm not going to fight this tooth and nail, but, frankly, I'd say we either include "federal," "confederation" and "dominion," or we apply the "it's too confusing to readers" argument to all these words and keep them out. No double standards, thanks. --G2bambino 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not exaggerate this: Dominion of Canada figures two paragraphs later, after the lead. The discussion is about keeping it in the lead. It is not being "excluded" from the article or purged from history, but left to a section where it can be explained in context. Which occurs immediately after the table of contents, approximately ten lines later.--Gregalton 16:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one am not suggesting that we should not use dominion anywhere in the article. The difference between "dominion" and "federalism" or "Canadian confederation" (which is what confederation should link to in this context) is that dominion has two different meanings - the other two terms have one.

That said, in the spirit of compromise, how about:

The territory of Canada has been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. Beginning in the late 15th century, the British and French explored and later settled the Atlantic coast, moving inland to the Great Lakes. France ceded most of its North American colonies to Great Britain in 1763, after the Seven Years War. In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada. As other colonies joined the new country, Canada moved to full independence through the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The Canada Act 1982 ended the last dependence on the British parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EronMain (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, though I still oppose the resoning behing excluding the word "dominion." Regardless, my one concern with the above proposal is the assertion that Canada was "formed" in 1867; that is not the case as Canada existed prior to that date. The best I can think of to adequately describe what occurred that year, without using the word "dominion," is: In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form a semi-autonomous federation named Canada. Though, this really just spells out in excessive detail what In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form a Dominion named Canada or In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form the Dominion of Canada could say far more succinctly. --G2bambino 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with G2 on all points regarding the 'resoning' [sic], or lack thereof, for exclusion. In support of inclusion, numerous reliable sources have been provided that indicate the validity of the notion; thus, the burden of evidence now falls on naysayers -- amid much argument, and despite a recent request, I have not seen one reliable source to support exclusion or which demonstrates that 'federal dominion' or similar is incorrect.

As has been pointed out, this debate concerns two words only. So, why are we mucking around with the rest of the rest of the paragraph? I'm all for enhancements, but this (and I mean this entire issue) is a hyper-reaction. That being said, G2's proposal harks of one I suggested above, referring to the sentence in question only:

• "In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous territory (within the British Empire)."

I would sub in 'federation' for 'territory' (and relink appropriately) only if it is removed from the 3rd paragraph. The rest of the paragraph (save adding notions about Westminster) would essentially remain unchanged. What's more: this would not require a complete revamping of the 2nd paragraph, and should mollify editors who are resistant to major changes as they pertain to this article's vaulted featured status. Quizimodo 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not one of verifiablity, but of placement of the term and summary style, which is basically editorial style. So there is no burden of proof. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is about verifiability and the burden of proof: you and others have not satisfactorily demonstrated why this wording, properly placed and consistent with summary style, should not be included. You and others continue to push this point of view, arguably a 'republican' one and/or one based on insufficient or incorrect information, but haven't provided any reliable sources to support it. I ask again, can you list and provide reliable sources to justify this position? Quizimodo

Again, as mentioned by countless editors, which you refuse to accept, is that most people find that the term dominion is not understand by most, and the lead should be of clarity which the vast majority of people understand. You are not assuming good faith with your accusations of POV pushing, and are going against consensus. If you want to talk about reliable sources actually related to this discussion, you would need to find a source that discusses the amount of people who understand the word dominion. There is no discussion of removing the word dominion, as Gregaltron has noted, where the discussion of the term is just 10 lines below the lead. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You make a number of claims both inflated and inaccurate. Countless? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the later poll indicates rough parity regarding this notion and counters the (flawed) poll immediately prior. Your notions regarding clarity assume that the current edition is unclear: hardly. I do not need to dredge up a reference about the level of comprehension regarding the term -- I have provided dictionary and encyclopedic sources which do that. Must I add actually add one (or several) to the phrasing of note in the lead? If you or others misunderstand or continue to promote confusion regarding the term of contention despite this, that is not my -- our -- problem. And, despite a number of requests now, you and others have not done the same, and have merely been polemic. Relatedly, provide sources corroborating the level of understanding for 'country', 'state', 'province', 'federation', 'federal', 'confederation'. And, frankly, since there is no discussion of removing the word 'dominion' and you have otherwise not persuaded in support of this viewpoint, given the context, the wording (actually added at the beginning of Sep.) is staying put for now. Quizimodo 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several senses of the word "Canada". One of them, which is the actual topic of the article, is the country called Canada. When I write "in 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada," this is the sense I mean. This should be made clear by the next sentence, which begins "as other colonies joined the new country." There are other meanings, but when used in this article, they are generally qualified in some way as "the French colony of Canada," "upper Canada," "the Province of Canada," etc. Canada - on its own - is generally used in the article to refer either to the country that exists today, or to the land area that this country occupies (e.g. "the First Peoples inhabited parts of Canada since...") - Eron ^Talk 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several senses: in this context, though, 'federal dominion' clearly and simply qualifies what resulted from Confederation in 1867. And, frankly, it does not require a significant (and perhaps flawed but good natured) retrofitting of a 'featured' 2nd paragraph to communicate that. Quizimodo 00:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that "flawed" is a matter of perspective. I was working on one sentence; as I did so I noticed a couple of other things that I thought could be improved as well. "Featured" does not mean "immutable" and I believe my changes were both minor and positive. I'd be happy to explain them sentence by sentence:

• "The lands have been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples." "The lands" is vague. Change to "the territory of Canada." Or I'd be happy with just "Canada" for that matter.

• "The territory of Canada" is unnecessarily wordy: the first sentence in the previous paragraph already deals with the topic. Canada (province or federation) did not exist millennia ago, so it's imprecise to indicate that aboriginals inhabited it. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Beginning in the late 15th century, British and French expeditions explored and later settled the Atlantic coast." I simply added "moving inland to the Great Lakes", which I think was an indisputable part of the pre-Confederation colonization of Canada.

• This is true: "and moved inland" would probably be sufficient, since there were movements on the western frontier too. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• "France ceded nearly all of its colonies in North America in 1763 after the Seven Years War." Ceded to whom? I clarified that they were ceded to Great Britain.

• This is fine, or indicate the UK to preclude duplication later in the paragraph. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• "In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federal dominion." Now we come to the heart of the matter - and of my compromise, which is to state the one clear and unequivocal fact: that a country was formed in 1867. Leave the details for just a bit further down the page.

• Yes, this is the heart of the matter. Noting that it became a federal dominion upon Confederation in 1867 is also a clear, unequivocal, and verifiable fact (references from the federal government have also been provided): while the topic of the article is in fact stated in the 1st paragraph, here above all it is important to clarify what sort of country was brought about by Confederation with allusion to what preceded it -- these notions are inextricably linked. And the current wording is as summative as it gets, with details later on. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• "A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom moved Canada towards statehood and culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament." As I have stated above, this does sound like Canada was neither independent nor fully a state until 1867. True in some respects, but not others. I added information on the gradual growth of Canada through the accretion of other colonies, and I suggest the word "autonomy" over "independence" as a more accurate description of Canada's gradual adoption of its full authority as a nation. I also added a reference to the key piece of legislation in this process.

• This sentence can stand for the most improvement: I support some of EronMain's current/prior notions including notions of autonomy, perhaps the Statute of Westminster, et al. Some could argue, however, that the country still has vestiges of dependence on the British parliament, as aboriginals maintain they can resort to the Privy Council since their treaties predate Confederation. Also let's remember that Mulroney sought the Queen's consent when he stacked the Senate in 1990 to pass the GST. Absolutely no talk of 'nation', though, given the many senses of that word and the Quebecois parliamentary motion of late. Quizimodo 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am doing my best to break what seems to be a deadlock and achieve some sort of compromise, assuming that compromise is what we are trying to achieve here. - Eron ^Talk 02:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Trust me: I acknowledge that, and am doing what I can to accommodate. However, it is ironic that such significant changes are being advocated by naysayers (not necessarily you) who, scant days ago, would use the article's featured status as a crutch to exclude this verifiable notion from the lead where it belongs. Quizimodo 20:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The above lead sounds good to me. Thanks again for the proposal. Regards, -- Jeff3000 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds good to me too. It avoids contentious terminology. It's unfortunate that the word Confederation cannot be used, as it refers unambiguously to the unification of existing British North American dominions/colonies/posessions into a federation. However, it eliminates the contentious, ambiguous, archaic, vague, colonial and monarchist term "dominion". I can live with this. --Soulscanner 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not as of yet. 'Confederation', 'federal/federation', and 'dominion' are integral and inextricably linked notions regarding the founding of the 'country' in 1867 -- all are required in some form in the lead for clarity. I find it very odd that such substantial changes to the lead are being supported, given its stasis for months beforehand and the (IMO) inferior proposal now put forth. Frankly, regarding the continuous and pernicious hyper-reaction this has resulted in, I may have to request a review of this article's featured status and neutrality. Quizimodo 17:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate the article for featured article review. I also recommend that you add some material to the etymology and history sections regarding the term dominion. I think that would better the article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I may do all shortly (and also reply to Eron's points above), but please understand that -- from the onset, and as my comments far above (from early Sep.) demonstrate -- I primarily want to clarify the sentence that concerns the polity that arose in 1867. Quizimodo 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see Confederation added back in as follows:

"In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada.

I'd also request changing "independence" to "autonomy" as follows:

"As other colonies joined the new country, Canada moved to full autonomy through the 1931 Statute of Westminster."

I am genuinely trying to improve this article. I'd appreciate it if someone could explain how my minor tweaks to some of the other text in the second paragraph of the lead, which I have explained above, have resulted in an "inferior proposal." Seriously, I can't see it; I'd like some specific feedback. - Eron ^Talk 17:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this as fine. I would like to see the changes go ahead. I still see no answer to the simple point that dominion clearly has two meanings, which in the lead is confusing and unnecessary; and since the use of the word in the Canadian context is explained in detail two paragraphs further down, there is no compelling reason to use it here.--Gregalton 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm back for a bit. Not so fast. What precisely are these two meanings? Please cite. Just as with Canada being a federation, country, parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, et al., apparent confusion/clarification should be allayed with links to the relevant articles (the imperfections of which this article also shares, but we're working on that). Many of the culprit words do have multiple senses, both currently and previously, but the Canadian Oxford Dictionary and other sources clearly indicate what the meaning of 'dominion' is in this particular context -- you and others haven't provided anything to counter that (at least clearly). That being said, 'country' (though rather obvious), 'confederation', 'federal', and 'Canada' also have a number of senses. As well, the choice to mention 'Confederation' while not elaborating what sort of country it produced doesn't hold water.

And, with all due respect, EM's proposal (at least the sentence of contention) reverts to the inexact featured version of yesteryear. The BNA colonies -- one of which was the British province known as Canada -- were united upon Confederation to form the federal dominion of Canada. It is stated upfront what the topic of the article is; however, the change in its status/structure to an entity with same name must be clearly and succinctly laid out in that sentence if nowhere else. This is better fulfilled with the current wording, without having to jump through non-existent or artificial hoops to explain it. I'm all for enhancements, but this isn't necessarily the way to go. Quizimodo 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada is a Dominion (see Clause 3). The long-form name of the Dominion of Canada is unfortunately disputed here by many Wikipedians.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Quizimodo, to answer your questions: These two meanings, specifically referred to, and linked to, are in the dominion article: "A dominion ... was a self-governing colony or autonomous state." So, was it a colony or an autonomous state? There are no particular hoops that need to be jumped through to eliminate its use in the lead, whereas the hoops to use it are well jumped-through: in the article, two paragraphs later. And again, if you wish to dispute other terms, please raise those as separate issues. Dealing with this one word seems difficult enough.--Gregalton 07:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an answer. I cannot speak for what other editors decide to add or morph elsewhere, particularly the one who is responsible for the 'definition' on the 'dominion' page and morass on this one, but the meaning of 'dominion' has already been cited on this talk page from a number of sources. I have stated before the need to better that article's lead and correctly attribute the assertions made. In any event -- as evidenced by the multiple polls and excessive discussions as of late here, we are already jumping through hoops to suppress a legitimate term from the lead. This entire exercise has been a hyper-reaction to a simple and factual assertion.

(If I had to answer, I would probably say neither as worded: it was a semi-autonomous territory of the British Empire, and is a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth other than the UK that acknowledges the British monarch as head of state)

I see little talk of mollifying neophytes by deferring or suppressing terms like 'Confederation', even though a number of sources identify Canada as a confederal state.[4] [5][6]

In fact, it still has not been demonstrated to satisfaction why 'federal dominion' should be excluded as is from the 2nd paragraph. Despite a number of requests now, amidst verbosity, no one has yet provided reliable, verifiable sources to support exclusion ... and, no, the 'filibusters' blog won't do. That's a huge issue -- until they are provided for our collective scrutiny, there really is little more to discuss. Quizimodo 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Quizimodo. I thank you very much for your efforts to include the term Federal Dominion in the second paragraph. I personally support the idea. However, the majority of Wikipedians are "ill-informed" on this issue, and unfortunately Wikipedia is run by the majority vote of the "ignorant-mob".

Best wishes eh, ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

'Ill-informed?Ignorant mob?' Nice. All hail your enlightening influence. Leaving that aside, I applaud the originality of 'Federal Dominion', but is it realy necessary to create a new term? It is not a matter of proving that it should be excluded, but that proving that it should be included. And that goes for 'Confederation' too, or whatever term: kingdom, empire, viceroyalty, grand poobarate, whatever. How does the state refer to itself? Going back into the mists of time to ponder acts of Parliament and pronouncements of the English government doesn't help, because we can argue for ages on legalty niceties and historical nuances. How does the state here and now refer to itsself. If it uses 'dominion', that needs to be cited. If it uses 'confederation', that needs to be cited. If it uses 'federal dominion', it needs to be cited. Let's not get bogged down in the mire of history- let's stick to the here and now.--Gazzster 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster. Ill-informed? Yes, they are. Canada is a Dominion (see Clause 3 of the BNA Act 1867). The long-form name of the Dominion of Canada is unfortunately disputed here by many Wikipedians.

Additionally, the term Federal Dominion is NOT a recently invented piece of "political double-speak". It is a real term.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Unitary Kingdom (since 1927)

Dominion of Canada is a Federal Dominion (since 1867)

Commonwealth of Australia is a Federal Dominion (since 1901)

Dominion of New Zealand is a Unitary Dominion (since 1907)

Dominion of Newfoundland was a Unitary Dominion (1907-1949)

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

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

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

Similarly,

United States of America is a Federal Republic (since 1776)

Republic of Texas was a Unitary Republic (1836-1845)

Confederate States of America claimed to be a Confederal Republic (1861-1865)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I have stated. 'Dominion', in the context of a former dependency of Great Britain, is a historical term (in a broader context, it obviously has a broader meaning). The titles you have stated (without references) are no longer used. Certainly not in the case of Australia (I am an Australian) where 'Dominion of Australia' has never been used. The Constitution of Australia does not refer to a 'Federal Dominion' but to a 'Federal Commonwealth', so I do not know where you got that term from. And it should be noted that 'Federal Commonwealth' does not form part of Australia's title. The full title of my nation is 'Commonwealth of Australia' and always has been. The correct term, if you need to use one, is 'Commonwealth realm'. This term is not however analagous to 'dominion', for CR denotes a fully independent nation, as opposed to an autonomous dominion. However Australia never refers to itself as a Commonwealth realm, only as the 'Commonwealth of Australia'. The last time the British government used the term dominion to refer to one of the now Commonwealth realms was in 1948. I challenge you to demonstrate where the Commonwealth realms continue to use the term dominion to describe themselves. As to the title of Canada in specie I cannot say: I am not an expert about Canadian matters. Perhaps they do continue to use dominion, in which case, it would be in a very specific context. May I point out that you seem to have ignored one of my most pertinent points: dominion is a nebulous term is a particular historical context. The context was the British Empire. The BE no longer exists. Therefore, 'dominion' is no longer a valid term. I repeat what I have observed before: some editors in Wikipedia (I am not referring in particular to you, please understand Armchair) seem to assert, across a wide range of articles, that 'dominion' is still a valid term to categorise former dependencies of Great Britain. This is patently false.--Gazzster 11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, I don't want to make any comment on how Canada should be described except for this one: While there is apparently a government website noted by Quizimodo that states that Canada is a confederation, it most definitely is not. It is undoubtedly a federation. Lexicon (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Lexicon: agreed, but my references were meant to demonstrate the apparent confusion regarding the culprit words, not just the one which naysayers have an unhealthy fixation against despite everything else.

Gazzster, please consult the articles Canada's name and Dominion: as the Canadian Encyclopedia indicates:

• ... under the Constitution, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title.

Each article possesses a number of references which corroborate this including How Canadians Govern Themselves, a volume produced by the federal government. Moreover, various citations have been provided for what the meaning of 'dominion' is, not only what it once meant. Please note, though, that this debate does not concern what the name of the country is, but the appropriate syntax in the second paragraph as to what was created upon Confederation.

Of course, given the pernicious and hyper-reactive point-of-view editing this has resulted in, we can defer to alternate wording:

• In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada" was formed.

And it is arguably neutral since it refers directly to the constitution. Of course I don't prefer this per se, but disruptive edits and editors as of late may require it. Quizimodo 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I thought the main issue under discussion here was whether or not to include dominion in the lede/lead, not whether or not is was EVER appropriate to apply the term "dominion" to Canada. Requesting a source to support its being contentious in the lede is silly - the only source that could ever be applicable is the talk page. The discussion needs to focus on one issue at a time --JimWae 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think it is 'silly' to provide a reference, you of course shouldn't have any difficulty in finding one. Unless, of course, your point of view is equally 'silly' ... The only sources that are applicable are ones we can verify ... and those in support of the assertion have been provided in abundance. Quizimodo 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

you don't think it silly to ask for an external reference for an internal matter (whether to include it in the lede)? Nobody is proposing the lede actually SAY "dominion" is a contentious term --JimWae 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, your understanding of the main issue is rather correct; it just so happens that it coincides with your second point (IMO), that its usage is also appropriate in this particular context.

And, no, I don't think it silly: provide a reliable reference which alludes to the apparent controversy of using the term, i.e., the contemporary controversy surrounding the aptness of 'dominion', if any. Otherwise, it's an artificial controversy, the product of editors who choose not to attribute their assertions or who push agendas of whatever stripe. Quizimodo 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is Dominion, not the lower case dominion. You folkes just seem to be not able to get that straight. Oi, Oi :(

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AVD, please see the entries for 'Canada' and 'dominion' in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (they should be on the relevant talk pages) -- lower case initial 'd' is appropriate here, just as with kingdom, republic, et al. Quizimodo 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a tangential issue that may need resolved at some point: from my view there is a generic "dominion" - any territory belonging to a ruler - and there is a specific "Dominion" - any self-governing entity within the British Empire still under jurisdiction of Whitehall. Prior to 1867 Canada was a "dominion" of Victoria; in 1867 it became a "Dominion" of the British Empire while remaining a "dominion" of Victoria; it is today no longer a "Dominion" of the Empire, though it is a "dominion" of Elizabeth II. --G2bambino 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No argument. :) Quizimodo 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the Capital of Canada? Ottawa? Or the NCR?

From the government of Canada's website: "Canada’s Capital straddles the border of two provinces (Ontario and Quebec), contains two major cities (Ottawa and Gatineau) and has two official languages (English and French)." (http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16297-24515-25108&lang=1)

So, the government of Canada says that "Canada's Capital" is the NCR, but this article says that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. Should that be changed?

On one hand, the constitution says that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. On the other hand, it's hard to deny that the government buildings now span both Ottawa and Gatineau. (The constitution was written back when Ottawa was a tiny industrial town.)

Perhaps Ottawa is the de jure capital while Ottawa-Gatineau is the de facto capital?

What do you think? Personally, I think the article should be changed to say that the capital is the NCR, but I wouldn't mind seeing if we can reach a consensus here first. Scientivore 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• The capital of Canada is Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Period. End-stop.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Reaper X 02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fist of all, thank you for discussing it here first. If all Wikipedians would do this, there would be far less needless cntentious editing.

I think that the confusuon here lies in the source you cite. A tourist guide is not exactly a scholarly reference, and they are often poorly written. For example, the opening sentence identifies Ottawa as the capital:

"Ottawa is one of four capitals (with London, Johannesburg and Budapest) that are neo-Gothic in style and spirit."

The NCR is a census region that identifies the the Metropolitain area of Ottawa. Ottawa is the capital city, though. The confusion is understandable. --Soulscanner 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the NCR is not a census region. It's an area that's been specially designated by the government to be overseen by the National Capital Commission. I can only assume that they would do that because they intend for the entire NCR to be considered the "capital" in some sense. Scientivore 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... In the United States, the National Capital Region refers to Washington, DC, and parts of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. NCR is an official designation used by the federal government for administrative purposes, and many federal agencies have their main offices outside the District of Columbia, but within the NCR. Still, the official capital of the United States is Washington, DC. Is the situation in Canada similar? Perhaps the key is the word "region," encompassing the greater metropolitan area that surrounds the official capital. It's a convenient designation for a closely-connected set of communities, but it's not a municipal entity (the NCR itself doesn't have a local government, police force, etc, though the individual cities within it do). How similar is the situation in Ottawa? Mtb174 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Washington situation but, from your description, it does sound very similiar. The capital of Canada is Ottawa but government buildings and institutions are on both sides of the river and the National Capital Commission oversees the use of federal buildings, land, and events in the NCR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The same issue as Ottawa/NCR could be brought up in relation to the capital of the United Kingdom and the capital of Nova Scotia. The British Parliament and even the Royal Courts of Justice and Buckingham Palace are located in the City of Westminster, not the City of London, both of which are small cities at the heart of what the world knows as "London". As for Nova Scotia, the City of Halifax no longer exists as a political entity, having been replaced with the Halifax Regional Municipality (which, unlike Ontario's Regional Municipalities, has a unitary government). London is undoubtedly the capital of the UK, however, and "Halifax" is still considered the capital of Nova Scotia, even if it doesn't really exist. Lexicon (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Discuss issue at Dominion and Canada's name articles

This issue of using the word Dominion has been debated before, and a preamble referring editors to the article "Canada's name" exists precisely to avoid this kind of contentious debate. The referenced article and the etymology document the evolution of this word, and provide a longstanding consensus.

I recommend a similar tack be taken here, as the issue is so similar that it would be splitting hairs to say that it was different. Issues regarding whether Canada was a Dominion in 1867 or remains one should be discussed at the Dominion page. Once a consensus definition is clarified there, we can decide whether the terminology is clear enough to use in the lead here. --Soulscanner 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, and No.

Let us discuss these 2 issues here, in 1 place.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner: you continue to confuse the issues. Many country articles have etymology articles, but this debate isn't about the country's name. You initiated discourse regarding this at the beginning of September, and I responded. Weeks passed until you started throwing up a stink. Throughout, few -- if any -- germane citations have been provided to support the willful exclusion of the current wording. And, as you have pointed out, there is no consensus as yet to remove the current phrasing here, either ... which has been in place for more than a month now.

Your attempt at redirecting the debate elsewhere, regarding notions which you have confused by your very edits, while insinuating contestable edits here is a non-starter and disruptive.

AVD, see above. If you wish to renew a debate about what the country's name is, do it elsewhere. This rather lengthy and drawn out debate concerns the syntax in the 2nd paragraph regarding the entity that arose upon Confederation, not to serve as a pulpit. Quizimodo 13:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominion is a contentious term that compromises the neutrality of the article. I have provided several references to do so, and will continue to do so on the Dominion article. Please go there if you wish to debate the issue.

For now I have replaced the unreferenced termninology with a reference that explicitly states that Confederation made Canada a federation. Please do not remove the referenced fact. It is against wiki policy to do so without consensus. --Soulscanner 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Since the dispute is about changes to this article, I strongly advise that any debate takes place on this talk page. The Dominion talk page is for discussion of changes to the Dominion article, not for discussion of changes to the Canada article, and still less for discussion of policy on the use of the term "Dominion" across Wikipedia. Any such general policy discussion should be carried out on the relevant policy pages. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Dominion is a contentious term that compromises the neutrality of the article. I have given at least 9 reasons for this, and the majority of people here agree that the term is contentious for a number of reasons. I do not have has much time on my hands as others here, so you'll have to excuse that I don't respond to all of the 20 odd posts you place here everyday. I've provided several references to support my, and will continue to put as I edit the Dominion article. Please go there if you wish to debate the issue. For now I have replaced the contentious, unreferenced terminology that most editors oppose with an uncontentious terminology that is explicitly supported by a scholarly reference. It explicitly states that Confederation made Canada a federation. Please do not remove this referenced fact. It is against wiki policy to do so without consensus. --Soulscanner 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is ironic -- hypocritical actually -- that you vehemently support retaining one referenced fact while suppressing and persistently removing another. Other points -- inflated, misleading, or boldly incorrect -- are dealt with above and below. Quizimodo 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, DR: the proponent’s route sounds like a 'divide and conquer' tactic and one meant to continue obfuscating the issue.

Ss, no: your editing and that of other naysayers compromises the correctness and neutrality of the article. You have only provided 'references' that allude to prior use of the term, including a blog (filibusters) from a 22 year old, and have provided NO reliable ones in support of exclusion. Here and at 'Dominion', you have insinuated inexactitude and (with others) perpetuate a pro-republican viewpoint which demands correction. In sum: other assumptions aside, it seems that you resort to disruption when you are unable to persuade.

As well, I have provided but one reference to support the current text. I have moved the reference recently added down (it can actually be moved back to its prior spot), but question why it should be added at all when better ones exist (hence its former removal) and since the fact of Canada being a federation is not in dispute. As well, as addressed above, we do not need to mention and link 'federation' twice in the lead, and the current text obviates the need to do so. Besides: consistent with summary style etc., weren't we trying to have a streamlined lead without the need for the eyesore of inline citations? Thanks for stirring the pot s'more.

Anyhow, if you truly doubt the assertion, we can always merely indicate that, per the constitution, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada" was formed upon Confederation. Take your pick. Quizimodo 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The archaic nature of Dominion is well documented under Canada's name and in the Etymology section. It is based on these that Dominion of Canada was rejected as Canada's current name. The nomenclature is antiquated and ambiguous. I am just repeating myself here; I've summarized these arguments above. The quote you site is given in the history section where it is fine. I see no mention of the unusual expression "federal dominion". I see one quote using "federation" and another using "federal state". Lets use these unless stated otherwise. --Soulscanner 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeating yourself serves no-one, least of the all the editors who must sift through it. Your willful blindness persists: the reference directly supports the assertion, indicating "a federal state, the Dominion of Canada." The Commonwealth secretariat indicates that, among other things, the "British North America Act of 1867 brought together four British colonies ... in one federal Dominion under the name of Canada." Also consult this volume. The citation from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary indicates 'federation with dominion status', which you also seem to have difficulty with. The deprecation of the term is not in dispute, but how is 'federal dominion' any more unusual than 'federal constitutional monarchy' or (by analogy) 'federal republic' (e.g., of Germany)?

Like, what is your problem? If you insist, I can substitute verbatim the text from the constitution, which also indicates upfront that "the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion". That should settle things, no? Quizimodo 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1) As already explained above, Dominion in 1867 referred to any colony within the British Empire. Nova Scotia, the Province of Canada, and New Brunswick were already British colonies, and hence Dominions. The Dominion designation changed nothing. It was just a word chosen to avoid using the word Kingdom, which would have offended the Americans. This origin is well documented in the etymology and on Canada's name. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1) "Dominion" - as a title - did not refer specifically to a colony within the British Empire; from 1867 on there were many colonies of the Empire that did not, and never did, become Dominions. The fact the term was chosen in place of "kingdom" only serves to highlight this fact. --G2bambino 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. In 1867 the term Dominion did not refer to any colony within the British Empire.

Colony: a possession with or without a locally elected assembly.

Province: a possession with a locally elected assembly. This is known as a Representative Government.

Self-Governing Province: a possession with a locally elected assembly that the Governor, by convension, is not supposed to over-rule (also known as a Self-Governing Colony). This known is as a Responsible Government (i.e, the Governor is responsible to the Elected Assembly).

Dominion: (a short form for a Self-Governing Dominion) a country in Personal Union with the UK.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

2) Canada is no longer a dominion. It has been clearly documented above that the name of Dominions (which designated colonial status with limited self-govenment) was changed to Comonwealth Realm in 1948. Hence the term is archaic. That is why it is no longer Canada's name. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

2) Canada is a dominion; i.e. the territorial possession of a ruler. However, that point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Are you trying to draw support by confusing people about what the actual issue is? --G2bambino 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Archaic ... which meaning.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archaic

Next, you are utterly incorrect again. The term Dominion does not mean colonial status with limited self-government (that would be a Self-Governing Colony). Dominion does not equate to a Self-Governing Colony. Lastly what the hell happenned in 1948 to formally include the term Realm?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

3) What changed in 1867 was the creation of a new federal level of government operating on a federal principle. This federal principle (the division of powers between provincial and federal governments) survives today. Canada is obviously no longer a dominion; it is not a colony of Britain, self governing or otherwise. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Grief, Charlie Brown. What utter circular non-sensical rubbish. The Dominion of Canada (or just "Canada") was not created as a resurrected Dominion of New England, nor a Federation of the West Indies, Federation of Malaya, or Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Get a grip eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If Soulscanner finds that references are, perhaps rightly, needed in order to include a term that describes what Canada became in 1867 - i.e. a federation - then why not satisfy those reqirements by simply adding footnotes after the word "dominion"? We have three now, after all. --G2bambino 21:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Because only one reference directly says that Canada became a federal Dominion (the one from the website promoting the Monarchy that doesn't mention its author), whereas the others quite explicitly stress that Canada became a federation or a federal state. Also, the federal principle in Canada is way more important than the colonial one emphasized by the word dominion. As well, it does not promote a monarchist POV. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We have references that state Canada became a Dominion, and references that state Canada became a federation; there's no need to search out other references that specifically include the words "federal" and "Dominion" right next to each other. Please stop being obtuse. --G2bambino 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is also the fact that the majority of people here, for reasons I outlined above, do not accept this terminology as relevant, clear or current. Dominion is a vague term associated with British colonialism (that is why decolonization in British colonies involved the Commonwealth changing the name of former colonies from Dominions to Commonwealth Realms and Canada dropping it from it's name). Federation (or federal state) is clearly and objectively defined as having a division of powers between a central federal government and subsidiary provinces or states. It is non-contenrious and NPOV. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And still you continue to misrepresent the actual issue. This isn't a matter of what's current, this is a matter of what's past. This isn't a matter of removing the word "federation," this is a matter of retaining the historically accurate, contextually relevant, concise, referenced word "Dominion." I don't believe anyone's falling for your machinations. --G2bambino 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And since Soulscanner has precipitated an edit war, I have added references to support the assertion. At this point, Ss and naysayers must explain why the current wording is unacceptable despite citation ... and have not yet done so.

Hereafter, I will not follow malcontents into the morass of edit warring, but be warned that further disruption won't be tolerated. Quizimodo 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. No need for personal attacks. If you think I've violated Wiki guidelines, go to arbitration. --Soulscanner 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

With your attitude and edit warring, please don't be surprised if assumptions of good faith have been supplanted by others -- one reaps what one sows. At this point, arbitration is premature and other options are available, but perhaps a wider request for comment may be called for. Quizimodo 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Quizimodo. Wikipedia works basically on the "Gang-Principle" (i.e., the fancy literary term of "Cabals"). The Canada page is basically an intractible mass of mis-information due to this basic fact. Good luck trying to change anything.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we have some good faith here? I do not see how accusations that one side or the other is attempting to promote monarchism or republicanism are helping to resolve this. - Eron ^Talk 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the intractable behaviour indicated above, that is exceedingly difficult. Quizimodo 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominion is "neutral" ... is it not?

How does the term Dominion comprimise the neutrality of the Canada article?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In this article, it's certainly polarizing. I'm happy to see the article locked, edit wars never solve anything. GoodDay 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

An arguement can be readily presented to demonstrate that Canada from 1867-1982 was a Dominion. Another arguement can be readily presented to demonstrate that after the Canada Act 1982, that Canada is still a Dominion (i.e., post 1982).

However, such things will simply be dismissed by the majority of Wikipedians here. They will scream original research, or exhibit willful blindness and simply not see reason.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then, make your argument, rather than assume prejudice in 'the majority of Wikipedians'.You may just convince somebody. Now as I've said before, I'm not an expert in Canadian matters, so, as far as I know, 'Dominion' may be part of Canada's official title. I don't know.But I am concerned by the idea that the term 'dominion' can still be used to label a former dependency of Great Britain. This is incorrect. No nation uses the term to describe itself; the UK has not used the term since 1948; the Empire no longer exists, so there is no context in which 'dominion' may retain any validity; it implies a notion of subservience to the UK, and so is considered demeaning by the nations of the former Empire. If Canada uses 'dominion' in it's title, I would ask you to demonstrate that it is in a specific context proper to Canada alone, and does not carry colonial overtones. Similarly I would ask you to acknowledge that the other Commonwealth realms are not described as dominions.--Gazzster 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster. Thank you for kindly asking me to make my analysis/arguements on Canada as being a Dominion. I shall do this to the best of my ability indeed.

One thing that may be of interest to you as an Australian, is that in the original Australian Constitution of 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was explicitly declared in the text as a Federal Commonwealth (this was taken later to mean a Federal Dominion).

I do know that the proposed name of the Dominion of Australia was debated and formally rejected. Do you know why? I'm asking you as an Australian, as me-self as an English-Canadian am not certain why this occurred eh.

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy. About 'Federal Commonwealth': if you look at our discourse above, it was actually myself who pointed out to you that this term is used in the Constitution, rather than 'Federal Dominion', which you were asserting. I do not know what you mean by 'taken later to mean a Federal Dominion.' By whom, and when? I have never heard of the phrase. Give me a reference.I have not heard of any debate to call Australia the 'Dominion of Australia'. If there was it must have been during the constitutional conventions before federation in 1901, for the Constitution itself never uses the phrase. I take it that you are retracting the idea that Dominion of Australia is a title. Thanks for your honesty. As for why such a name might have been rejected, I cannot say. I can only suggest that 'dominion' implied a notion of subservience to Great Britain, which, even in 1901, was considered opprobrious to most Australians, in particular to the Irish who formed a good part of the population.Cheers. --Gazzster 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why so-called dominion status was meaningless in 1867, and is equally meaningless now.

N.B. Main points of this edit have been placed as requested in lead in article Canada's name. --Soulscanner 11:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Dominion designation changed nothing in 1867; it was chosen to appease American republican sensibilities, and clearly aimed to uphold a strong Monarchist ideology. It was by no means chosen to devolve any authority from Britain. Please refer to Canada's name#Adoption_of_Dominion for full, documented explanation of why name was chosen. What changed was the formation of a federation. The Dominion title was just a name chosen at the last minute.
• Canada remained subservient to Britain in every way. When we talk of Dominion legislation, we are talking about the legislation of a colony with Responsible Government, which British North American colonies all achieved in the 1840's. Confederation did not change this. The change was one of going from several small colonies with responsible government to one big colony with responsible government.

"When the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 it was granted powers of self-government to deal with all internal matters, but Britain still retained overall legislative supremacy. This imperial supremacy could be exercised through several statutory measures. In the first place, the Constitution Act of 1867 provides in s.55 that the Governor General may reserve any legislation passed by the two Houses of Parliament for "the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure", which is determined according to s.57 by the (British) Queen in Council. Secondly, s.56 provides that the Governor General must forward to "one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary's of State" in London a copy of any federal legislation that has been assented to; within two years after the receipt of this copy, the (British) Queen in Council can disallow an Act. Thirdly, four pieces of Imperial legislation constrained the Canadian legislatures. The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 provided that no colonial law could validly conflict with, amend or repeal Imperial legislation which explicitly or by necessary implication applied directly to that colony; the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 as well as the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 required reservation of Dominion legislation on those topics for approval by the British Government; and, the Colonial Stock Act of 1900 provided for the disallowance of Dominion legislation which the British government felt would harm British stockholders of Dominion trustee securities. Most importantly, however, the British Parliament could exercise the legal right of supremacy it possessed at common law to pass any legislation on any matter affecting the colonies."

• So Confederation clearly changed nothing with regard to Canada's autonomy. With reference to Responsible Government gained by BNA colonies in the 1840's:

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

• Dominion "status" as self-governing states, despite symbolic titles granted various British colonies, only came into being in 1919 when the "self-governing" Dominions signed the Treaty of Versailles:

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

• The definition of Dominion was deliberately vague in order to deny the British Dominions more autonomy:

"Never at any time in [1919-39] was the full international personality of the Dominions, as distinct from Great Britain, established beyond equivocation"

• The end of Dominion status is regarded as occurring with the declaration of war in September 1939. This asserted Canada's sovereignty in international affairs; becasue Britain accepted the delay (it was three days later than Britain's declaration), it put an end to the semi-colonial status that Dominion implied:

"Today it is firmly established as a basic constitutional principle that, so far as relates to Canada, the King is regulated by Canadian law and must act only on the advice and responsibility of Canadian ministers".

• Because the word Dominion is a colonial vestige that has no meaning in anything but historical contexts, the word was gradually dropped from all government titles and departments, including Canada's name. I don't need a reference to show that. This is done because Canada was no longer a Dominion. Dominions haven't even existed in theory since the 1950's when all Commonwealth legal documents dropped the name in favor of Commonwealth Realm. "Dominion" is only used in historical contexts.
• Unlike the vague, nebulous, and temporary state of Canada being a dominion (first a colony, then a semi-autonomous colony, then an autonomous state within the Commonwealth ending in 1939), Canada survives as a federation. It is still a defining and debated principle in Canadian life. There are probably esoteric legal arguements to support that Canada is a dominion or Dominion (the correct spelling isn't even clear), but it doesn't matter because it is simply a moot point in Canadian politics; Britain or the Queen could try to assert its authority over Canada again, but everyone would just yawn. The federal principle is what changed in 1867, and is what continues to define the Canadian polity.

--Soulscanner 10:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk • contribs)

Hello Soulscanner.

(1). Please sign your posts (this section had no signature).

(2). If you post in many paragraphs ... people will break-up your post to respond to each paragraph. This is NOT vandalism.

(3). I own the references that you are speaking of with regards to the supposed end of Dominion Status. I have read them in full.

(4). You are NOT the final word on the interpretation of the Canadian Constitution, the country's name, nor the historical context of what Dominion means.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Is Federation better than federal dominion for describing Canada ?

I think we need a poll to clarify where we all stand.

All here agree that Canada became a federation in 1867 and that it essential for understanding what Canada currently is. We are in disagreement as to whether this is the case with "federal dominion". Indeed, the only source that supports use of this word is a website from the Commonwealth Office that has no author or references listed; it is also hosted by an organization dedicated to promoting the British Monarch. It is not an academic source.

Is "federation" (or "federal state") a better word than "federal dominion" for describing Canada in the lead? --Soulscanner 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - For reasons stated above.
  
• This poll is moot, for reasons stated further above. Despite your original, lengthy synthesis immediately above, Canada is already described (indisputably) as a 'federation' in the lead (3rd paragraph). Clarity is required, however, when describing the sort of entity that resulted from the union of British provinces upon Confederation. Frankly, your continual rejection of verifiable references is absurd: I merely need to iterate the relevant text from Canada's constitution (Constitution Act, 1867) to demonstrate the point:[7]

• "The Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion..." (preamble)

and

• "the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada" (section 3)

And, despite your riposte, none of the references you have provided support the argument to exclude. (As well, the JSTOR references are only available to those with university accounts, so we can't corroborate assertions made. Anyhow, this paper seems to assert that which we already know regarding the increasing autonomy of these entities over time, but are mum about what sort of entity Canada became in 1867.)

In fact, the only mention of Canada being 'federal' therein is accompanied by its designation as a dominion. So, at this point, any rejection of including 'dominion' in the lead as is must be accompanied by a similar intent to eject notions of federalism in that sentence as well. These notions are inextricably linked: the current rendition equitably pays tribute to both, while Ss's 'proposal' is rather limited in focus. How do you like them apples? Quizimodo 14:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes no requirements that sources be on the web, only that they be scholarly and verifiable. Go to the library if you wish to verify them. The Frank Scott article clearly states that dominion status (i.e. self-governing colony) did not exist until 1919. Hence, it is not appropriate to include this status at the time of confederation. --Soulscanner 10:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• This poll is moot - Indeed, there is not one source so far presented that affirms the inapplicability of "Dominion" to explain what kind of federation Canada became in 1867. Instead, Soulscanner has yet again resorted to acrobatics of logic (read: OR) and the creation of false controversies in order to subdue a certain word that causes him offence (a conclusion I come to in part because of his constant relation of this argument to monarchism, his designation of the Canadian sovereign as a foreigner, his embarrassment over the colonial associations with the term "Dominion", etc.; all irrelevant points). --G2bambino 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yes - In 1867, the British North American colonies began to unite in a federation. It is true that it was entitled a dominion but that fact is best served, as it is, in later sections and other articles. The introduction should be a clear and simple overview of the topic and avoid the complicated issue of the meaning of "dominion". The important fact in the sentence in question is that the three colonies united in a federation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yet, what kind of federation is to be left to the reader's imagination? Please, can we stop making this an issue about the country's name?? This is about the formation of a new and very unique type of entity within the British Empire. If we'd stop complicating the matter with extraneous garbage, that point would be very clear, to both us and article readers. --G2bambino 16:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Details are best left in other sections and articles Canada#History, Canada#Government and politics, History of Canada#Post-Confederation Canada 1867-1914, Post-Confederation Canada (1867-1914). This is not about Canada's name; I am among the minority here that believes Canada's title is still "Dominion". This is about a clear and concise introduction. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, then. However, the question remains: how do we make a clear and consise introduction without using the term "dominion"? So far, proposals put forward either simply eliminate the word, leaving it unclear what kind of federation Canada became, or substitute the word for a more lengthy and convoluted explanation. If, from a editorial point of view, "dominion" is both accurate and succinct, why then avoid it? --G2bambino 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • "Dominion" is unclear, as Soulscanner rightly pointed out, its exact meaning was not defined. I believe the sentence in question should stick to the fact that the colonies of British North America united in a federation. The following sentence is for describing the degree of independence, which is another can of worms best left till this one is closed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The meaning of "dominion" in this context is hardly unclear. Again, any confusion is the result of a particular editor creating confusion where there otherwise would be none. --G2bambino 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • • The sentence in question already sticks to that fact and does so equitably -- i.e., that the colonies 'federally united into One Dominion'. If the current succinct paraphrase won't do, then the verbatim reference from the constitution should be more than adequate. I cannot speak for nor relate to the artificial confusion which a clutch of editors here and elsewhere continue to promote, despite citations to the contrary. Quizimodo 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Dominion of Canada: Another two cents worth. As a genealogist / historian primary source documents refer to the Dominion of Canada often, and I have never encountered federation in reference to Canada. For instance, early homesteaders proved up Dominion lands and received letters patent from the Dominion Government of Canada. The first sentence in the public domain document: Canada is quite compact. Canada, or to be more exact, the Dominion of Canada, comprises all that part of North America north of the United States, with the exception of Newfoundland, Labrador, and Alaska. The distance from the Atlantic Ocean on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west is 3000 miles, and from the borders of the United States to the farthest point in the Arctic Ocean at least 1500 miles. With its 3,745,574 square miles, Canada exceeds in size both the united States and Australasia, and is almost as large as Europe. The 2004 CIA factbook on Canada also remains with a 'a self-governing dominion in their definition. However as mentioned above, Dominion was dropped in 1982 1. I happen to like the wording Dominion of Canada, for my vote. SriMesh | talk 04:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. FYI: please see here [8], here [9] (pp. 8-9), Canada's_name#Use_of_Canada_and_Dominion_of_Canada, and Dominion#Canada: the national holiday may have been renamed (per your reference), but the country's title was not 'dropped'. Anyhow, the point of contention throughout this discussion regards the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph, which clearly yet succinctly describes the polity (a 'federal dominion') that resulted from Confederation. Feel free to weigh in. Quizimodo 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. For reasons stated above. No referencing is needed to support what is, ultimately, an editorial decision. Term dominion is not clear (IMHO) to users not steeped in this issue and should be avoided in the lead. Dominion text follows two paragraphs later and is sufficiently detailed, and hence dominion term is by no means banished from this article, whatever the disputes over its meaning or significance. A term that provokes such extensive controversy should not be used in the lead.--Gregalton 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Referencing is at the heart of content in this exercise. The fact that this has provoked an artificial controversy, which is neither reflected in cited literature nor in the zeitgeist, is an even greater testament to the utility of references which say differently. I'm glad you concur that the term shouldn't be 'banished' since, in this context in the lead, it is very appropriate. (Other instance are not the matter of dispute.) As well, to date, I see no challenges to excluding complex notions of federalism for the benefit of users not steeped in that issue, either -- in all instances, this is mitigated through the use of piped linking to relevant articles/topics, which is a major function of a wiki. Quizimodo 15:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Federalism clearly divides political powers between a federal government and provinces. The Canada Act of 1867 clearly identifies most of these powers. It clearly began in Canada in 1867. I've seen various sources ascribe the beginning of dominion status to 1867, 1907, and 1919 and its end to 1939, 1947, and 1953. Given sources also attest to the fact that its definition was deliberately vague and unclear. --Soulscanner 10:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Since you have invoked the original 1867 act regarding, without contest, Canadian federalism (which is by name mentioned once in the act), you shouldn't have any objection to its designation as a 'Dominion' in that very same act (mentioned four times) either. Quizimodo 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fourth sentence of the second paragraph

I'm not particularly sure where this will go, but I felt the debate over the use of this single word had become far too convoluted, whether purposefully or accidentally, for anyone to keep a grasp on the actual issue. Thus, I thought I'd attempt to sum up the arguments. As I'm more familiar with the pro-dominion arguments, it seems obvious the pro arguments here are more hashed out. Please feel free to add/edit as appropriate. --G2bambino 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Debate

So that we're clear, the debate focuses on the use of the word "dominion" in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of this article:

• In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a federal dominion. (or, possibly; ...became a federation with dominion status.)

• Note: this does not pertain to Canada's name and the use of "dominion" therein.
• Note: this does not relate to monarchism or republicanism

Arguments

Arguments in favour of retention of "dominion":

• Mentioning 'd/Dominion' clarifies matters regarding pre-/post-Confederation changes in governance.
• The term is archaic/historical in many important contexts, but is not in this one.
• The wording is properly placed and consistent with summary style.
• No evidence supports the existence of controversy or contentiousness associated with the use of "dominion" in this context beyond that which has been artificially created here.
• The main proponent of excluding "dominion" on the grounds of its being contentious earlier supported the inclusion of "dominion" in the lead.
• "Dominion" is no less confusing and/or archaic than "federation" or "confederation," two words to which nobody objects.
• It becomes difficult to explain what kind of federation Canada became in 1867 while avoiding use of "dominion."
• Citations support its use:
  • Canadian Oxford Dictionary, entry for 'Canada' (p. 220): Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867...
  • Canadian Encyclopedia: 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...
  • Constitution Act, 1867: Preamble: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown...; II Union: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada...
  • CIA World Factbook, entry for Canada: Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867...
• The one main cite provided in argument against its use is a personal website of a 22 year old university student, and thus does not conform to WP:V.

Arguments against retention of "dominion":

• The word is contentious.
• The word is confusing.
• The term is archaic.
• The term adds nothing to the article.
• Including "dominion" in the lead compromises the neutrality of the article.
• Dominion status was meaningless in 1867.

Summary of Response

Here's a short summary of response. References can be found on my postings above and below. Thank you. --Soulscanner 10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning 'd/Dominion' clarifies matters regarding pre-/post-Confederation changes in governance.

• It does not. It confuses things. It gtranted canada no new autonomy, as outlined by referenced sources above. Including dominion in this way gives the misleading impression that it did.

• This is merely more of your pseudo-controversy pap. Autonomy is a straw-man argument: nobody but you has raised it. Confederation in 1867 gave Canada a new and unique status within the Empire, that is the point. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The term is archaic/historical in many important contexts, but is not in this one.

In this context (Confederation of 1867), it simply does not apply. Dominion status did not exist until 1919. It ended in 1939 for Canada.

• Numerous sources say the contrary. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yes: the sole, direct mention of Canada's federal nature in the 1867 act is accompanied by its affirmation as a dominion, in the preamble:

• "... the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom..."

So, what's that about usage in this particular context? Quizimodo 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The wording is properly placed and consistent with summary style.

• It is referenced with dubious sources or with sources that do not support its use.

• The sources meet WP:V. I mean, do you really think the actual text of the Constitution Act is an unreliable source? --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No evidence supports the existence of controversy or contentiousness associated with the use of "dominion" in this context beyond that which has been artificially created here.

• Frank Scott was a respected constitutional lawyer; the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1911 clearly referred to African colonies as dominions of Queen Victoria;

• More straw men. To the first point: where did Scott say "dominion" is controversial in conjunction to Canada's evolution in 1867? To the second: you willfully confuse the generic definition of "dominion" to the specific definition which we're dealing with here. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dominion" is no less confusing and/or archaic than "federation" or "confederation," two words to which nobody objects.

• We all agree that Canada became a federation or a federal state in 1867; there is a far greater consensus for this among editors than for the meaning of "dominion"; that is why federation is a better choice than dominion;

• Any confusion about the meaning of "dominion" in this context is the problem of two or three editors. The quirks in understanding of a minor few should not dictate the composition of Wikipedia, and links to the article Dominion should suffice for those who actually can't grasp what the word means within the sentence provided. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It becomes difficult to explain what kind of federation Canada became in 1867 while avoiding use of "dominion."

• No one has demonstrated a need to show what kind of federation it was. The main fact of Confederation was the creation of federal and provincial levels of government. Little if any extra autonomy was conferred upon these governments, making the later use of the term "dominion" (i.e. an autonomous colony) inapplicable in 1867. Hillmer refers to Canada as a federation without calling it a federal dominion. He correctly says that Canada was called a Dominion in 1867, but avoids assigning it dominion status in 1867 because he knows that the issue is debated and that all possession of Queen Victoria were called this throughout her reign.

• To the contrary, it is even more confusing to leave out what kind of federation Canada became; was it fully independent? Was is republican? Was it colonial? Canada's confederation in 1867 was a unique creation within the British Empire, a type of entity which was, and is, dubbed a "Dominion." As already pointed out, you're being purposefully obtuse in your demands for a cite which uses the specific combination of words "federal dominion." We have sources that affirm Canada became a Dominion in 1867, and sources that affirm Canada became a federation in 1867, hence it's simple to say Canada became a federal Dominion. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations support its use

• I've provided several scholarly citations that argue against its use. The sources provided show how contentious and poorly understood the term is. Moreover, they provide a historical explanation for why the term is so confusing.

• You have either provided the personal work of a 22 year old university student (and a republican one, to boot), or misinterpreted the words of others to suit your argument. There as of yet exists no source that explicitly states - without the need for personal interpretations - that using the word "dominion" in relation to Canada's new status in 1867 qis either confusing or contentious. --G2bambino 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I support every one of G2's responses, so needn't comment further. Quizimodo 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The claim has been made above that there is no confusion about the meaning of the word dominion, except among two or three editors. These citations seem to support that not only is there confusion now about the meaning of the term, this confusion has existed for quite some time:

"They settled for ‘Dominions’, which Wilfrid Laurier of Canada said, rather enigmatically. is ‘a general term which covers many words which it is not possible to define otherwise’." . See the ref. Wilfrid Laurier found the term undefinable, and there are still symposiums on what exactly dominion status was (and is?).

"Though no one new what the new (Dominion) status was, Great Britain began to offer it to other less favoured portions of the empire."

"In a letter to his wife, Borden recognized the difficulty of Canada's Dominion status within the British Empire, and he wrote of "Canada's anomalous position; a nation that is not a nation. It is about time to alter it."

Presumably two (three, depending on how you interpret Mulroney's stance) PMs having some difficulty with what exactly dominion meant should suffice to make the point that Canada becoming a dominion may be a fact, but its meaning is not clear. This is why some of us are proposing to leave the point until later in the article.

I would point to the following encyclopedia article and section at [10] entitled "Towards Dominion Status": which conveniently mentions that the dominion came into being, but only specifically refers to one change: federation. So again, it was a dominion, but this is secondary in importance and ambiguous in meaning. This is the reason we are proposing leaving it out of the lead.--Gregalton 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments from Greg Alton. I've stepped back from this debate over the last week because, quite frankly, I do not have the time or energy to wade through pages and pages of back and forth over the interpretation and use of one word in one paragraph. To judge by the reaction, one might think that some editors had proposed that the term "dominion" (or "Dominion") be eradicated from all Wikipedia articles related to Canada. That is not what is being suggested here.

What has been suggested is that given the differences of opinion - including informed scholarly and political opinion - on the exact nature of the country of Canada on 1 July 1867, and on the meaning of the word dominion in that context, that the term should not be employed in the lead. Recognizing that other defining terms - like "federation" - are also problematic in this way, my personal suggestion was to make no reference at all in the lead only to the political structure. That can be - and is - explored more fully in the body of the article and in other related articles. - Eron ^Talk 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Gr: the above references may simply demonstrate the need for this and related articles -- namely, 'dominion' -- to be more comprehensive. If the term is enigmatic, that is what piped linking is for; these references should be added to the 'dominion' article and equitably expanded upon. There is no debate that federalism (quite an enigmatic political philosophy on its own) is a major outcome of Confederation, but that shall not be to the exclusion of other notions which may be equally important or informative: per the original BNA Act, both notions -- of 'federalism' and 'Dominion' -- are noted hand-in-hand. In addition, if anything, Borden's quotation sheds light on the issue and contradicts some editorial stances herein: as a dominion at the time, Canada was obviously a unique entity within the British Empire yet not fully autonomous; this should also help to guide edits that are being discussed about the latter part of the 2nd paragraph of the lead. (BTW: the 'farlex' link is available only to subscribers.)

EM, to flip your notion on its head: one would think that some editors are hyper-reacting quite severely to 'one referenced, nuanced word in one paragraph' which, in this context, is fully appropriate. However, recognition of this does not require suppression of both terms in the lead as you suggest: that would serve no one and, instead, calls for skillful editing. Quizimodo 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is trying too hard to get around a simple notion: that dominion is an ambiguous and possibly loaded word FOR THE LEAD. The idea that it was a unique entity at that time does not call for getting into this much discussion about one word which is then discussed in more detail two paragraphs later; that was the intent of the phrase 'gradual process of reducing dependence on the UK' portion. And I'm sorry, I disagree that federalism is difficult to understand for non-specialist readers (and if you honestly have a problem with that word, please outline that argument separately).

Can I ask a simple, honest question: why is it so important that the word dominion figure in the lead? I have responded to the question of why I (and some others) think it should NOT be, but still have not heard any explanation of why it is so essential that it be included in the lead. (And again, I underline I have no problem with the word figuring later and in separate articles where it is entirely appropriate).--Gregalton 16:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If anything, this entire discussion is trying to get around what should be a rather simple affair: the inclusion of a succinct and entirely appropriate word FOR THE LEAD regarding the kind of polity that resulted from Confederation in 1867, as indicated in Canada's constitution. The fact that this has generated so much controversy here, which is not reflected in the zeitgeist, is perplexing. Even if the notion is enigmatic (which some of the references above may allude to), the link to the article should be more than adequate to clarify matters.

So, to flip the question on its head: why is it so important to exclude the word from the lead? This has not been answered to satisfaction. It is not our job to spoon-feed visitors due to disagreement or disillusionment with what is basically a single, well-defined, and (given the context) important notion. This is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, a comprehensive compendium of information, not one that conforms to the lowest common denominator. Quizimodo 18:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, it was a polite and simple request. It seems many of the arguments against inclusion have been stated. The arguments for inclusion do not seem to have been stated. I would like to hear them.

And which zeitgeist are you referring to? Or rather, which age?--Gregalton 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please: atop this section, G2 itemised and summarised the arguments in favour. Did you not see these, or are you being argumentative?

As for the age in question, I am primarily (but not solely) referring to the present -- but suffice to say that significant evidence has still not been presented to corroborate that the term is as contentious as this discussion would make it 'seem', in the past or present. Quizimodo 01:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To go point by point about the reasons for inclusion of the term dominion, then:

"Mentioning 'd/Dominion' clarifies matters regarding pre-/post-Confederation changes in governance."

It does not clarify much, because the term's meaning is unclear. See above.

"The term is archaic/historical in many important contexts, but is not in this one. The wording is properly placed and consistent with summary style."

The term is not used much now, and hence is not consistent with a summary style, which relies primarily on terms whose usage is current and clear to readers who may not reside in, e.g., the 19th century (for whom it may not have been clear either).

While it is archaic in many contexts, it is not in this one -- which is correctly used to describe the polity that was created in 1867. Otherwise, please consult the style manual regarding the lead section. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you link to the style guideline that contradicts the use of the word "dominion". The lead should be capable of standing alone... should be written in a clear, accessible style ... specialized terminology should be avoided... . DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Read on; per the guidelines for the lead: "Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." Some of the proposals above further expand on this clearly (e.g., 'federal dominion of the British Empire/United Kingdom'). The term is no more specialised than 'confederation', 'federalism', or 'country'. In its basic form, as dictionaries indicate, it is synonymous with 'domain'. No one has yet demonstrated how the current syntax is unclear or inaccurate; its inclusion in the lead, in this context, is definitely germane. Put alternatively: willful suppression of 'dominion' in the lead (which, per the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada is by definition) makes this article less accessible and encyclopedic. Quizimodo 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

essential to describing the subject The fact that Canada was termed a Dominion is interesting but not important. Saying it became a "dominion" does not tell anyone what kind of "polity" it became. The following sentence in the lead discusses the degree of independence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That is, in your opinion. Arguably, it is essential in describing the subject, and particularly in this context, as pointed out above numerous times. Indicating that Canada became a 'federal dominion' upon Confederation is more informative than indicating 'federation' in describing the resulting polity (which is already mentioned in the 3rd paragraph), and is both succinct and clear. It may not tell you anything about the sort of polity that was created, or you and others may refuse to assimilate the meaning of applicable terms, but that really doesn't matter. Between the ruminations of numerous (disillusioned) editors and reliable sources predicated on a key clause in the country's founding document, there's no question which I choose. Really, I think you are running out of straws to grasp ... A bientot. Quizimodo 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"No evidence supports the existence of controversy or contentiousness associated with the use of "dominion" in this context beyond that which has been artificially created here."

As above, even prime ministers have been stumped by what the term means.

So, add these notions to the 'dominion' article, or to 'Canada's name': doing so will only make the piping of 'dominion' in the lead that much more informative. Quizimodo 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be understood without consulting other articles. The concept of dominion is appropriately mentioned and linked in later sections. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion and words; per above: "Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." Enough said. Quizimodo 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"The main proponent of excluding "dominion" on the grounds of its being contentious earlier supported the inclusion of "dominion" in the lead."

Irrelevant, there is more than one proponent, and the ambiguity of the term does not depend on one individual. As above.

Wholly relevant, as it demonstrates hyprocritical and ill-informed argumentation of the proponent(s). And the continual promotion of ambiguity regarding the term doesn't depend on one or few naysayers -- including present company -- either. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

""Dominion" is no less confusing and/or archaic than "federation" or "confederation," two words to which nobody objects."

Dominion has been shown to be ambiguous, not true of federation, confederation in this case is used as a process which specifically refers to Canadian confederation, where piping is appropriate and sufficient.

As above, numerous sources and definitions have been provided which directly counter this assertion. Any extraneous judgements are just that and will be treated as such. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"It becomes difficult to explain what kind of federation Canada became in 1867 while avoiding use of "dominion.""

Not at all. It became a federation. Federal dominion is by no means more clear. "What kind of federation" it became may be unclear, but 'federal dominion' is no more clear, due to the ambiguity of the term.

This is already noted in the 3rd paragraph. In 1867, Canada became a federal dominion, or a federation with dominion status. Do you actually challenge this?

There are some 25 federations worldwide, not all similar in structure or entitlement. You and others choose to over-simplify the matter and insinuate or exaggerate confusion. You also seem to have difficulty grasping the feature in wikis known as the piped link, which is more than sufficient to clarify any ambiguity regarding this notion. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Citations support its use:

Canadian Oxford Dictionary, entry for 'Canada' (p. 220): Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867... Canadian Encyclopedia: 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... Constitution Act, 1867: Preamble: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown...; II Union: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada... CIA World Factbook, entry for Canada: Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867... The one main cite provided in argument against its use is a personal website of a 22 year old university student, and thus does not conform to WP:V."

None of the citations provide any insight as to meaning of the term, other than repeating its use, which, as demonstrated above, is ambiguous.

Uh-huh ... Cited dictionaries provide definitions for the term, and an encyclopedia provides further insight. If these reputable publications are 'repetitive', then that represents a concordance regarding the term in reality ... and demonstrates a basic fallacy of opposing argumentation on this talk page. In other words, the term is not ambiguous just because you and others say that it is. Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And, if one looks at the list above, none of the reasons cited for inclusion amount to much more than a) denial of any dispute about meaning; b) claims to clarity; c) reliance upon the term for clarity; d) use in other sources. All of these reasons (it seems to me) are disputed: a) the meaning is not clear, because dispute exists; b) see (a); if the term is not clear, using it again does not make it more clear; and, d) if the sources cited do not clarify, repeating the use of an unclear term does not add to clarity. I grant (as I have before) that the use of an unclear term with longwinded explanations is fine - just not in the lead.

So: why does it need to be in the lead apart from the reasons cited?--Gregalton 09:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is circular and argumentative. These points have already been dealt with by G2 above. I find it curious that you would comment in summary underneath other comments already made; however, this is unsurprising given your initial ignorance of those responses and, whether unintentionally or by design, further conflates the issue by decentralising it.

Anyhow, If you choose to continue to dispute the reasons above apart from those cited, despite references and definitions to the contrary, that is your prerogative. But your responses -- opinions -- have not provided any additional insight. So: why should it be excluded from the lead? Quizimodo 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gregalton. The arguements for inclusion of Canada being a federal Dominion are pretty plain.

(i). Clause 3 of the British North America Act 1867 states that Canada is a Dominion,

(ii). the division of powers section implicitly and explicitly indicates a federal government,

Therefore, 2 + 2 = 4, .... i.e., Canada is a federal Dominion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gregalton.

Prime Minister Wilfred Lauier

He specifically coined the legal term "Self-Governing Dominion" (its short form being "Dominion") at the British Commonwealth Conference of 1907 (I own the facsmile copy of the minutes of the 1907 conference). Laurier knew exactly what Dominion meant. The comments that you quote are refering to the wish for more offical power being transfered from London.

Prime Minister Robrt Borden

He was an ardent advocate of the British Empire becoming a Federal Empire. He wanted all British Possessions to become one big "super-country". An idealistic dreamer he was indeed. The "Nation that is not a Nation" comment most like refered to the 1917 Imperial War Cabinet arguements.

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney

Mulroney? You actually quoted Mulroney. Are you daft? He was bar-none, the most hated PM in Canadian history. It was no small feat to achieve but ... Everyone disagree with what he said "Canada was".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Armchair, I think not a few of us are tired of your abusive style of comment. Don't be so personal, please. --Gazzster 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster, I am very sorry and apologise.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Great examples of ad hominen arguments, AVD, attacking three Canadian PMs and another wikipedian in one post, while entirely missing the point: that the issue of the meaning of dominion is not just 'two or three editors.'--Gregalton 16:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gregalton. Point-in-fact, I did not criticise PM Sir Wilfred Laurier, nor PM Sir Robert Borden.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remove unscholarly sources in the lead

I would recommend that the responders to my statement above begin countering my referenced claims instead of repeating items that I've already addressed in my referenced posts above.

Normally, we do not need to overly picky about scholarly versus institutional sources. However, at this point in the debate we are going to have insist on it. This debate has gone on too long and we need to absolutely strict about accepting only the most legitimate scholarly sources for the lead. It is obvious what the common thread is.

These three sources have been cited, ostensibly in support of calling Canada a federal dominion at the time of Confederation. None of these really support this nomenclature.

• The first given source calls Canada a "federation";
• The second calls Canada a "federal state" ;
• The third source calls Canada a "federal Dominion", with a capital "D".

However, only the first source qualifies as a valid scholarly source in the very strict sense required here. This source appears in the Canadian Encyclopedia, and is written by a legitimate Canadian historian, Norman Hillmer of Carleton University. It is hence an acceptable source here.

The second source appears as a caption on a map of the Atlas of Canada produced by Natural Resources Canada. I cannot find the author of this document, so we cannot be sure of its source. This map caption also refers to Canada as a confederation, which appears to be mistaken. Hence it appears that some academic rigor is missing here, making it of dubious quality in comparison to the Encyclopedia article.

^{(Another 2 map sources: Survey of the Dominion) AND Physical and Commercial Analysis of the Dominion of Canada will get this atlas section online ASAP also. SriMesh | talk 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)}

The third source appears at the Commonwealth Commission's history page. There is no author attributed to this source. This publisher 's mission is to promote the British Commonwealth and Monarchy, so it's objectivity is dubious. It's purpose is not to document history in a scholarly fashion, but to paint the British Empire and Commonwealth in as good a light as possible. In so doing, it publishes inaccuracies.

Most troubling is the outright falsehood that the intention of the British authorities or even the Fathers of Confederation was to establish a more autonomous status for the British dominion (dominion meant colony in the nomenclature of the day). It is clearly established by explicit quotes on the article Canada's name that the intentions of choosing Dominion were: a) upholding Queen Victoria's dominion or supremacy over the Canadian territory; b) British colonial officials thought that the preferred title, "Kingdom" would offend republican sensibilities in the U.S.; c) The Premier of New Brunswick liked the biblical overtones.

No primary source is quoted that ever says that anyone in Britain granted more autonomy or that the father's of Confederation even wanted it. The quotes say quite the opposite. And the actions of Britain following confederation showed the opposite, as documented above. Britain passed laws that explicitly restricted the autonomy of colonies following Confederation, whether they were called "Dominions" or not. No incident in actions or in words recognized more autonomy for Canada or the "dominions" until 1917, and this wasn't formalized until 1919 (see sources from Frank Scott above).

Hence only Hillmer's article serves as an authoritative source. The Atlas of Canada serves as an acceptable compliment to the article. The anonymous article by the former British Colonial Office is best regarded as institutional propaganda, similar to what one might expect from the Turkish government on the Armenian genocide. It should be removed as a reference unless it is explicitly used to identify the position of the Commonwealth Commission. --Soulscanner 10:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Souscanner do you understand the difference between Absolute-Monarchy, and Constitutional-Monarchy?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have only one simple reply to this confusing, repetitive, phobic riposte: if you challenge (nonsensically) the validity of the reliable references already provided, we shall substitute the current wording with the precise syntax from Canada's constitution (Constitution Act, 1867) regarding this point:

• In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[11] was formed.

OR

• Upon Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were "federally united into One Dominion (under the Crown of the United Kingdom)".[12]

which (without the parenthetical) has the benefit of being very concise ... or similar, like:

• Upon Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were "federally united into One Dominion" of the British Empire(/United Kingdom) named Canada.[13]

Take your pick. That's it -- I'm done. Quizimodo 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I am okay with either, but lean more towards the first. --G2bambino 19:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK -- I mildly prefer the second option (perhaps with tweaks, as above) because, within the context of this discussion, both notions (that of Canada becoming a 'federal dominion') are encapsulated in the quotation from the text of the constitution, which should assuage those who may contest it. Suggestions? Quizimodo 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is outright rubbish

Soulscanner wrote,

"The third source appears at the Commonwealth Commission's history page. There is no author attributed to this source. This publisher 's mission is to promote the British Commonwealth and Monarchy, so it's objectivity is dubious. It's purpose is not to document history in a scholarly fashion, but to paint the British Empire and Commonwealth in as good a light as possible. In so doing, it publishes inaccuracies."

"Most troubling is the outright falsehood that the intention of the British authorities or even the Fathers of Confederation was to establish a more autonomous status for the British dominion (dominion meant colony in the nomenclature of the day). It is clearly established by explicit quotes on the article Canada's name that the intentions of choosing Dominion were:

"a). upholding Queen Victoria's dominion or supremacy over the Canadian territory;

"b). British colonial officials thought that the preferred title, "Kingdom" would offend republican sensibilities in the U.S.;

"c). The Premier of New Brunswick liked the biblical overtones."

I must ask here ... Soulscanner is your first language English?

a). Do you understand that "Dominion" is different than "dominion"?

b). Yes it would offend the USA.

c). Ummm err ... So what?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple Approach

It seems to me that this whole 'is Canada a dominion' thing can be solved quite simply: 1) We have to consider whether Canada here and now considers itself to be a dominion. And here we need to refer to parliamentary legislation. If Canada was constituted as a 'dominion', has that constitution been amended by legislation? If so, please cite that legislation. 2 Define what is meant by 'dominion'; this is a primary cause of dispute. Is 'Dominion' in a context proper to Canada alone, with a meaning of its own, or does the term refer to a broader context, ie., an autonomous constituent of the British Empire.I would strongly suggest that it cannot refer to the latter, for the BE no longer exists.

So, has the initial title of Canada been changed by legislation, and is 'dominion' proper to Canada?--Gazzster 08:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) The initial title, though disused, has not been changed by legislation. Numerous reputable sources indicate the legitimacy and currency of 'dominion' as Canada's title; e.g.,

• "Dominion" entry in Canadian Encyclopedia: "The word came to be applied to the federal government and Parliament, and under the Constitution Act, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title."
• How Canadians Govern Themselves, a primer published by the federal government, pp. 8-9: "The two small points on which our constitution is not entirely homemade are, first, the legal title of our country, “Dominion,”..."

Quizimodo 16:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(2) The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines 'dominion' as (2004, p. 443, sense 3):

• the title of each of the self-governing territories of the Commonwealth.

Quizimodo 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite that dominion is still part of Canada's title, then of course the article can remain edited to reflect that. As to the second part, a dictionary is not a political and cultural authority. In fact, it is weak argument to refer to a dictionary at all. The Commonwealth in fact does not have any 'self-governing territories',as if the Commonwealth were an umbrella authority. The Commonwealth is made up of 'self-governing territories', several of which are republics. These could hardly be called 'dominions'. And as the discourse between Armchair and myself revealed, the Commonwealth of Australia (and other Commonwealth realms) no longer use the title 'dominion', if ever they did (and in the case of Australia, it most certainly did not) . The British government stopped using the term in 1948. So here I believe you are on shakier ground. --Gazzster 10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my second response was more for brevity (with the intent on expanding it) -- time is not in abundance. But, it goes to say that if the title is still current and part of the country's constitution, it is undoubtedly applicable. In opposition, can you provide reliable contemporary citations which significantly differ than the dicdef, or contradict it? A number have been provided above in support. Other territories may not use the title, but that does not nullify its legitimacy or its applicability in this particular/Canadian context, i.e., the sort of polity Canada became upon Confederation, not necessarily what it is ... which is explained in the following sentence (or, at least, the level of autonomy over time) and is somewhat applicable to its status upon Confederation. Quizimodo 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't really been following what I'm saying. If you can cite that dominion is still part of Canada's title, then of course the article can remain edited to reflect that. So if you can, no arguments. As to the second point, an editor has yet to prove that the term 'dominion', taken in a wider context, is still used to describe the Commonwealth realms. --Gazzster 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because this thread is a digression that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. We are not necessarily talking about the term taken in a wider context -- in THIS (largely historical) context for the lead, usage of the term is appropriate: in 1867 upon Confederation, Canada became a self-governing dominion, the first, of the British Empire. Also, see below about the currency and correctness of this assertion, as currently worded in the lead. Anyhow, any additional context regarding the notion is in the linked article.

As for the applicability of the term 'dominion': yes, it has largely been replaced by 'Commonwealth realm' -- but, to flip the matter, the latter term wasn't in use in 1867, either. Again, this entire discussion is about the use and inclusion of the term in the proper context. Relatedly, it may be prudent to further clarify notions regarding the transition from empire to commonwealth and increased autonomy over time, as they apply to Canada, in the next (5th) sentence.

Moreover, you request 'no arguments' regarding the first point -- nothing would please me more. I presume then that your concerns regarding this (previously: "'Dominion' may be part of Canada's official title. I don't know.") have been allayed? Because, if they have been, then that establishes the foundation for its need in the lead in the first place. And, if they have not been, something else is at play. Quizimodo 02:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting the argument to rest once and for all

In any modern encyclopedia, atlas, or other reference book, Canada is simply reffered to as "Canada". The title "Dominion of Canada" was dropped decades ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the debate is mostly about whether to use the word "dominion" when talking about the founding of the country, at which time the term was in use. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and (for example) please consult the introduction for the entry for 'Canada' in the CIA World Factbook. Quizimodo 14:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The CIA article is a perfect example of why use of dominion in a short summary about Canada is a problem. The CIA article is silent on the changes that have occurred since 1867, and one can be forgiven for getting the impression from that CIA article that Canada is still a dominion subject to the UK. As for our article, just mentioning dominion in the lede raises the question whether Canada is still a dominion - and our lede is also completely silent on that (and any lede must be so on that issue, since it is too complex an issue for a lede). Canada is clearly NOT a dominion in the same sense that it was one in 1867, for it is no longer a dominion of the UK. Canada is clearly now a realm & the monarch's title no longer claims Canada as one of her dominions. IF Canada is also still a dominion, it is one in title only (mostly, in my opinion, since nobody has tackled officially changing it). Including dominion in the lede is not INaccurate with regard to past history, but its information value for a reader unfamilar with the term does not justify including it. Canada's actual status within the UK did not change with Confederation - on 2 July 1867 it was still a mostly self-governing colony of the UK - except the term colony was substituted out. What changed in 1867 was that 3 BNA colonies united into a federation of 4 provinces, with the expectation of more provinces to come. The only reason I can think of that people want to include dominion in the lede is that they like the term for one reason or another. Personally, I do not like using terms about Canada that would suggest (rightly or wrongly) to many people that it is not an independent country. But encyclopedia should not be about personal likes & dislikes, they should be about being informative & not needlessly confusing the reader.--JimWae 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• What changed on 1 July 1867? From the UK point of view, where they had 3 colonies to administer, they now had one colony/dominion to administer. From the Canadian point of view, they now had an extra level of gov't - federal & provincial. --JimWae 06:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'm not an expert on Canadian affairs, so I will let other minds discuss how the word 'dominion' is used in Canadian history. I can however speak to how 'dominion' was used to describe former dependencies of Great Britain which are now either Commonwealth realms or republics. In my opinion JimWae drops peals of wisdom when he says:

As for our article, just mentioning dominion in the lede raises the question whether Canada is still a dominion - and our lede is also completely silent on that (and any lede must be so on that issue, since it is too complex an issue for a lede). Canada is clearly NOT a dominion in the same sense that it was one in 1867, for it is no longer a dominion of the UK. Canada is clearly now a realm & the monarch's title no longer claims Canada as one of her dominions. IF Canada is also still a dominion, it is one in title only (mostly, in my opinion, since nobody has tackled officially changing it). Including dominion in the lede is not INaccurate with regard to past history, but its information value for a reader unfamilar with the term does not justify including it.

Here JimWae touches on a very pertinent point, one which I have been trying to express. Here it is more eloquently put. From what I have been gleaning from the contribution of editors, Canada was founded as a dominion, yes. But what is meant by dominion? Was it a term placed in a specific context for Canada in 1867? If not, does it have the same meaning as the term 'dominion' (which was never constitutionally defined by Great Britain or its colonies) used some 30 or so years later to describe autonomous constituents of the British Empire? Here lies the ambiguity. If Canada was constituted a 'dominion' (as it seems to have been), does it remain so, especially as 'dominion' is almost always interpreted as a paternalistic, outdated, colonial term? The former dominions of Australia and New Zealand do not use the term (if ever they did officially). Can we say that Canada also rightly objects to the term? To sum up: yes, Canada was constituted a 'dominion', but even though no legislation may have overturned the title (I don't know) can we still call Canada a dominion?

Can I also add that I am enjoying this discussion. Only in Wikipedia could we get down to such nuances and depths. Great stuff!--Gazzster 08:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

::Dominion title should not be in the lead paragraph, it should be in the historical sections though IMHO. I'm no constitutional expert, but I do recall in my school history classes of long ago, Canada chose the title Dominion of Canada in 1867. At some point in the 20th century, the Dominon title was dropped (how & when exactly? I don't know). How the Dominion vs dominion got started? Is (to me) a larger mystery and headache. Ya know, its pointed out to me once, that Canada (today) is actually a kingdom (but that's another headache). GoodDay 15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster/JimWae: thank you, I think this is well put. As some have tried to express here, it is precisely this ambiguity that is the problem: in the lead only, I repeat. Despite the bombardment of references to 1867, it is a) not clear what a dominion actually means (see references by Canadian PMs); b) not clear that it can be said that Canada is still named a dominion (despite all the lawyering references to documents, surely if that was the country's official name the Canadian government would use it?); c) clear that there are connotations of dependence which are at least debatable; and, (d) clear that the meaning has changed over the years, and the context makes the current meaning unclear. Whether or not any definitive answer can be given on any of these points, the word should not figure in the lead if any question remains.--Gregalton 15:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am perennially perplexed by the popular -- and rather unsourced -- opining above regarding the title and its appropriateness in the lead. If a source such as the CIA Factbook opts to describe that Canada became a 'self-governing dominion in 1867': that is all that is required. Of course, this isn't the only instance of such sourcing. (Actually, the example was provided to counter Cashcleaner's erroneous comments.) Instead, we have an assemblage of editors who, for various/whatever reasons, have opted to cast it from the lead and snowball to support this action. It is curious that JW's wisdom is being lauded -- but upon being asked repeatedly on the the talk page for 'Canada's name' for references to support his refactoring or deprecation of content, JW did not, and has not, provided a single reference to support it. Then, as now, said assertions are just that.

Let's use an analogy. In this context, 'Confederation' is used to describe the initial act of union in 1867 and subsequent incorporation of provinces. Barring the case of Nunavut, Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949 ... around the same time as Canada's status as a Dominion was beginning to be refactored. Thus, both may be equally ... moribund. Numerous references also allude to this, yet I do not see any attempts to mollify infidels by suppressing that term -- particularly given its meaning in a wider context. (Yes, Gazzster, this is directed primarily at you.)

So, "can we say that Canada also rightly objects to the term 'dominion'?". No: many Canadians may deprecate the term ... but Canada (the entity) does not, since the title is retained in the constitution. And, can we "'still call Canada a dominion'" (whatever that means)? Yes: it is not invalid in this context just because a clutch of commentators object, have yielded to disbelief, or use its nuanced meaning as a reason to deprecate it and conflate confusion. And to those who point to the apparent flux in its meaning, this is shared among many words, including 'Canada' itself ... which is duly explained/expanded in pipe-linked articles as needed.

Some believe the title has been 'dropped': please cite this. And those who continue to insist that 'I don't know' regarding whether the title has been overturned, despite these citations, are simply and willfully ignorant. A number of references, both here and at 'Canada's name', are available that directly counter this perspective.

(BTW, yes, New Zealand did use the term, and was -- and occasionally is -- applied to Australia [14] [15])

So, in summary, popular sentiment does not obviate equitable, verifiable source matter. I'm all for intriguing discussion, but it appears largely for not what and a hyper-reaction to ill-informed editing. It seems ironic that one would invoke that an 'encyclopedia should not be about personal likes & dislikes' and original assessments about content (which is true), while boldly demonstrating the opposite herein. Given the above, the burden of evidence falls on those who opt to exclude, not the reverse -- to date, no one has satisfactorily demonstrated the inequity of the current lead. In addition, a number of variants have been proposed, with little to no comment. If there is no conciliation regarding this point, this will be a rather lengthy exercise. Quizimodo 22:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with Dominion (yes, capital D) being in the article. But, why is it so important to have it in the lead paragraph of the article? The opening paragraph should deal with Canada's current status, which is a Commonwealth realm not a Dominion. GoodDay 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire debate/morass deals with the 4th sentence in the 2nd paragraph (not the 'opening one'), which describes the polity that Canada became upon Confederation in 1867. The initial sentence of the article introduces the topic, and later paragraphs/sentences in the lead (should) expand further about its status in the appropriate context. It is described in the constitution as "one Dominion [federally united] under the name of Canada", and nothing else. So, to flip your question: why is it so important to belie the importance of this cited fact by excluding it from the lead? Quizimodo 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well then (excuse my earlier misunderstanding of the discussion) facts belong in Wikipedia. GoodDay 22:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NP. :) Quizimodo 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Quizmodo, I have to acknowledge that you went to the trouble to find references to Australia as a dominion, and I might even have to acknowledge that some individuals or organisations may still refer to the Commonwealth as such. Certainly the author of the review of the book referred to [16]]. But the second reference [17]) is talking about Australia in the past. And before 1953, true, it was called a domininion. It was however never part of its official title (Constitution of Australia). I would still argue that 'dominion' is not used in reference to Australia in any meaningful way nowadays. You are right, New Zealand called itself a dominion after being granted that status by Britain. However, in 1946 the prime minister of NZ gave instructions to his government to drop the term from official documentation (Dominion of New Zealand).This was done because even in 1946, the term carried paternalistic overtones. From the accession of Elizabeth II the term was dropped entirely for the former dependencies of Great Britain. The term 'realm' was used instead and continues to be used. This is an example of a term becoming obsolete and irrelevant, not by abrogation, but by disuse. Some of us are simply suggesting that this may be the case for Canada. If I may suggest, without intending to be personal, that to say a country remains a dominion, simply because the document of constitution has not been amended or abolished, is excessively legalistic. Surely this encyclopedia does not merely reflect the points and dots of the law, but also the common understanding of minds and hearts concerning a particular topic. The present status of Canada (and other former dominions) has to be taken in historical context. I might refer you to an article of the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (27,2): The Strange Death of Dominion Status, by D. Macintyre. This work is available online. If this academic is to be credited, the title alone gives you an indication of the present state of the term 'dominion.' In this article, Macintyre explains that 'dominion' was a loosely defined term to describe states between a colony and an independent state. It was never intended to have permanent status. Those countries were given dominion status precisely because it was intended they be sovereign states in the future. Now the former dominions are independent realms, and so, the word no longer has any meaning for them. As to your points about the word 'confederation': that does not concern me. I don't know enough about that. I am concerned about how the word dominion is treated.--Gazzster 04:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

fools rush in where angels fear to tread. The Government of Canada says that 'Dominion of Canada' is the title of the country: "1. The British North America Act, 1867 (Constitution Act, 1867) that created Canada gave it an official title. What was it? a) Dominion of Canada. ... It remains our country's official title." [[18]] The British North America Act, 1867, does not use the word title: it says Canada "shall be One Dominion under the Name of Canada" and uses the word 'name' and the name 'Canada' throughout. [[19]] So it seems Canada has a title and a name, and the two are not exactly the same thing. Richardson mcphillips1 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

'Fool'? If you're going to be insulting you don't merit a reply.--Gazzster 04:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I read that as referring to himself as "foolishly" entering the debate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise if that was your intention, Richardson. In which case, you do deserve a reply. There is no argument that Canada was constituted a dominion. And, I believe, there is no argument that the relevant acts still contain the phrase 'Dominion of Canada'. So the lead can certainly say, Canada was constituted a dominion. The question some of us are raising is, what is Canada now? And we touch on interesting points here. Is 'Dominion' a term created specifically for Canada? In this case, 'Dominion' has a meaning proper to Canada alone, and there is really no probolem in continuing to state that Canada is a 'dominion'. But might 'dominion' have the same meaning as 'dominion' used to describe autonomous states within the British Empire; Australia, New Zealand, South Africa , Newfoundland, etc. In the latter case, 'dominion' is no longer a valid term. It only had validity in the context of the British Empire. The Empire no longer exists.The term is no longer used, replaced by 'realm' in 1953. Some of us are simply asking: even though the term has not been repealed, does it still apply? Does a word on a piece of paper 140 years necessarily remain valid for all time? Does the Canadian government still call itself a Dominion? It is reasonable to ask this question.--Gazzster 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I did mean I was the fool: I used that figure of speech because clearly a lot of intelligent people have thought about these issues in great detail, and I hesitated to join the fray. I included two quotations, one from the Gov't of Canada, and a quotation from the BNA Act 1867, to which the Gov't of Canada referred. The quotation from the Gov't of Canada answers your reasonable question: the Canadian government titles Canada as 'Dominion of Canada'. "It remains our country's official title". It seems to me that any interpretation of what 'dominion' means today is moot, or perhaps, interesting but not ad rem. I included the second reference to indicate that it seems to me that some of the debate and/or confusion might be over an apparent distinction between title and name. I start with the primary texts, which should have pride of place before any forays - important as they are - into what the words really mean today. Richardson mcphillips1 01:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your balanced analysis. Yes, I am convinced now that the title 'Dominion of Canada' remains.--Gazzster 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Even if arguably true (since the title dominion has not been [formally] amended within the 1867 act) that does not mean dominion belongs in the lede. Also, nowhere in the 1867 act does Dominion of Canada appear, so putting Dominion of Canada in lede would be even less informative)--JimWae 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase Dominion of Canada appears explicitly in the text of the British North America Act 1871 (the first offical ammendment of the BNA Act 1867). Legal convention dictates that the long-form name is thus quoted.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Canada also appears 7 times in the 1871 BNA unmodified by Dominion. Neither fact has any bearing on what happened in 1867 nor on what should go in the lede--JimWae 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JimWae, you know very little about Constitutional Law, Legal Convensions , or Order-of-Precedence (i.e., "He who proceeds first"). The presence of the phrase Dominion of Canada in the British North America Act 1871 (i.e., the first ammendment of the original BNA Act 1867) constitutes the quoting of the country's long-form name. A long-form name is of higher legal rank (i.e., higher in Order-of-Precedence) than a short-form name. Thus, by legal convension the writing of the phrase Dominion of Canada explicity in British North America Act 1871 constitutes the implicit assignment of the Dominion of Canada in the original British North America Act 1867.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And come to that, 'Dominion of Canada' does not appear in the 1982 Act either. But the Canada Heritage site sponsored by the government and cited by Richardson does say 'Dominion of Canada' remains the title of Canada. So where does that leave us?--Gazzster 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The various sites and publications of the Government of Canada are inconsistent on the use of Dominion. On the one hand, the Heritage site referenced above states that "Dominion of Canada" is the country's official title. On the other, the government publication A look at Canada - provided as a study guide for those taking the citizenship exam and containing information about Canada that is considered essential for new Canadians - does not mention the word dominion at all. In all current legal documents, the country is referred to as Canada. See, for just a few examples, these tax treaties: the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China, the Agreement Between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany, or the Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Canada's partners are referred to by their full, long-form name which includes a title; Canada is simply Canada.

The fact that the BNA Act has not been amended to remove "One Dominion under the name Canada" may support a de jure argument that Canada is still properly titled a Dominion, but I think it is clear that - pace Heritage Canada - Canada is, de facto, simply Canada. - Eron ^Talk 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is nice to see more people than the last time I saw this argument agree that Canada's title still is "Dominion", however, it is not really the issue that needs consensus to unlock this page. What is at question is whether or not to use the word in the opening paragraphs. I, and many others, believe it is not useful to use the word in what should be a clear and concise introduction to the subject of Canada. The meaning, connotation, and significance has been debated for a century and its use is not appropriate in the introduction. It can be, and is, mentioned briefly in the body of the article and should be covered in detail in the articles on Canada's name and Dominion. It adds no value to the lead and, in fact, detracts from it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; and it would be nice if more than four or five people weighed in on the choices listed below; the vote closes on Monday. What happened to all those who were so vociferous before? Suddenly they don't want to cast their vote on a resolution. --G2bambino 23:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello DoubleBlue. The long-form name is the Dominion of Canada and the short-form name is Canada. However, the country was founded in 1867, and after the new Constitution in 1982, is still a Dominion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the United States Department of State does not agree, stating that Canada has no long-form name. It appears that the matter may not be as open and shut as some editors think it is. - Eron ^Talk 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Eron. No you are incorrect. The proper meaning is "no long-form name was submitted" to their country list.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that, Don? That is an unsupported assumption. I personally would expect that the State Department would be a little more careful at doing their protocol homework.

I have provided several examples - and I can find many more - of international treaties where Canada's name is stated as simply Canada, paired with long-form names of other countries such as The Federal Republic of Germany. If you are aware of any such document from the last fifty years or so that states the name of the country as The Dominion of Canada I really would like to see it. - Eron ^Talk 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, after this latest exchange, I have to reserve my judgement again; the Government's position is not clear. The word 'dominion' certainly does not appear in the 1982 Act. Can anyone tell us for a fact: does the 1982 Act abrogate or simply amend the 1867 Act? I would suggest that the only authority which can state the long form name of Canada is the government of Canada itself. We may have to pay an online visit to the Governor-General's website or the PM's website.--Gazzster 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The 1982 Act included all the old BNA Acts in a schedule, renaming them Constitution Acts and thereby making them Canadian Acts rather than British Acts and amendable by the Parliament of Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the results page that shows up if you search for the phrase "Dominion of Canada" on the Government of Canada's main web site. Happy hunting. (The first hit is for an agreement signed between the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario - in 1905. The second links to the text of a Royal Proclamation "Declaring His Majesty's Pleasure concerning the Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada" - in 1921. Cobwebs abound; current references, not so much.) - Eron ^Talk 03:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian GDP per capita

The Wikipedia entry for 'Canada' lists GDP per capita at $32,614 and adjusted for PPP at $35,600. The Wikipedia entry for 'List of Canadian provinces and territorries by gross domestic product' lists different figures. The figure here at PPP is $44,118. This is a huge difference. Which is correct? Perhaps, neither? I can see the nominal figure for Canada being $44,118 because of the rapid increase in the value of the Canadian dollar and the figure at PPP being perhaps around $40,000.

The current listings just don't make sense though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.40.223 (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

An attempt to satisfy the monarchists here who wish to see the word "dominion" in the lead while not muddying up the clarity and simplicity of the introductory paragraphs.

I believe it is a mistake to call Canada a dominion in the lead since it is difficult to define and controversial. However, it is nearly incontrovertible that it was entitled a Dominion in 1867, whatever, if anything, that meant. Following that logic, I have drafted the following final two sentences of paragraph two:

In 1867, Confederation united three colonies in federation to form the Dominion of Canada and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America. The 1867 Act granted general powers of self-government and increasing independence was achieved in successive Acts, culminating in the Canada Act 1982, which severed the final vestige of dependence on the British parliament. And remove the words "A federation" from the beginning of paragraph three.

DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle; what does this discussion have to do with monarchist sentiment? Is it not more about accuracy, succinctness, and contextual legitimacy?

Regardless, I don't see much of an issue with your proposal, but would like to see others' comments. --G2bambino 21:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How about In 1867, Canada was founded when three colonies united to form a semi-autonomous federation and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America. then? DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The syntax is rather contorted -- there is no advantage to this proposal. Why are we attempting to jump through artificial hoops when a succinct and accurate edition is already in place?

Anyhow, a variant of what I proposed earlier (with links):

• In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous polity within the British Empire.

or replace 'polity' with 'state', and/or 'semi-autonomous' with 'self-governing', and/or 'British Empire' with 'United Kingdom' or under the 'Crown of the United Kingdom'. Otherwise, I agree with G2 and prefer the current edition. Quizimodo 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-autonomous? You are missing the point completely. Please stop trying to judge the independence of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, Irish Free State, India, and Pakistan from a Republican point-of-view, for that is what you are doing.

The Dominions are (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) or were (Newfoundland, South Africa, Irish Free State, India, and Pakistan) independent countries that chose to have as their figure Head-of-State the Constitutional-Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..

The "independence" angle is constantly harped on by people that don't like the fact that we are a Dominion. That is what we were founded as in 1867, and that is what we are today ... a Dominion!

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying this? Especially as you have already conceded that Australia has never called itself a dominion. The British government does not use the term dominion to refer to former dependencies of Great Britain. Why do you continue to insist that they remain dominions. If they are called anything it is Commonwealth realm. If Canada is still a dominion (I don't know), fine. But don't try to paint other Commonwealth realms with the same brush. Really, insisting on 'dominion' is not only wrong but insulting. And we do not 'choose' our head of state: she is a hereditary monarch, and the peoples of her realms have no say as to whether her son will succeed or not.--Gazzster 11:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Don, you misunderstand me. The proposal says in 1867, it was semi-autonomous and that now, it is completely independent. It doesn't say that Canada is or is not a Dominion now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, and therein lies part of the value of this proposal. --G2bambino 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it may not be 'completely' independent. For example, when Mulroney stacked the Senate to pass the GST in 1990, he sought the consent of the Queen to do so. Whether this was a courtesy or a requirement is uncertain, but I presume the latter since it represented a significant change to a pillar of Parliament. Quizimodo 20:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada's independence is indisputable; Mulroney, as per the Constitution Act, 1867, sought the approval of the Queen of Canada for the addition of extra seats to the Senate, not the Queen of the United Kingdom. This personal union arrangement between the two countries has been in place since at least 1931, but most definitely since 1982. --G2bambino 21:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. :) Quizimodo 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello DoubleBlue. The British North America Act 1867 states explictly in Clause 3 that Canada is a Dominion. The BNA Act 1867 is contained (the legal term is consolidated into) within the Canada Act 1982 and has NOT been repealed. Thus Clause 3 of the BNA Act 1867 is still in force and Canada is still a Dominion (back in 1867 and today in 2007).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

AVD, for once I agree with you and that scares me. :-O Somewhere up above on this giant talk page I said a similar thing. :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello DoubleBlue. LOL! Thanks eh.

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note, the current phrasing arguably also fulfills this: Canada became a d/Dominion upon Confederation in 1867, but is mum about what it is now ... which is elaborated upon in the next sentence/paragraph. Quizimodo 15:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will oppose any wording that says "Canada became a dominion" in the lead since the term is not meaningful and is contentious in that context. I would prefer to leave the word "dominion" entirely to later sections but, if others are intransigent about having the word in the introduction, I will accept entitling Canada with the Dominion of Canada phrase. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See above; a proposed variant links to it. Anyhow, your rationale is perplexing, given that 'd/Dominion' is mentioned in the 1867 act four times, yet 'Dominion of Canada' is not mentioned at all. Quizimodo 15:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Did we ever get any real opinions on the use of the direct text from the Constitution Act, 1867? I don't see any response to your proposals above, Quiz, besides mine. --G2bambino 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was any extra commentary and, given the excessive cross-talk and myopic fixation herein, is unsurprising. Quizimodo 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The allegation has been made here several times that those suggesting the word dominion not be used in the lead are proponents of republicanism (and suffering from a myopic fixation, no less) and/or being opponents of monarchism. Since this entire discussion of dominion in the lead has not once (to my awareness) involved ever suggesting removing "Canada is ...a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state", the allegation appears baseless. Surely if one was actually trying to erase suggestions of monarchism from this article, one would start with the sentence containing the (factual) statement that Canada is a monarchy?--Gregalton 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait a sec; I'm a staunch republican who happens to support the usage of Dominion in this article. It could be used in the lead, in a historical way. We republicans aren't all suffering from MF. GoodDay 21:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. If there is no dispute about the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, there shouldn't be any dispute about the fact of Canada becoming a dominion upon Confederation, either -- the two are somewhat connected. Many other things throughout this discussion have proved more baseless than accusations of republicanism or monarchism (which, from the onset, has been insinuated quite handily). Quizimodo 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada did indeed become a dominion upon Confederation, that's a fact and nobody can retroactively change that. GoodDay 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I support this version,

In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[20] was formed.

I am having trouble understanding peoples objections to the Dominion word. It is a historical fact ... why do people hate it so much and want to suppress it?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am thoroughly fed-up with this non-sense. Canada was founded in 1867 as a Dominion. Then the Canada Act 1982 came along, and Canada is still a Dominion. I wash my hands of this whole debate. This talk page epitomises what I hate about Wikipedia ... consensus of the Ignorant-Mob running amok.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustrations AVD; when you have numerous editors involved, there's bound to be conflicts from the biggest things to the smallest. You have to take the bad with the good. Those who are against Dominion are just as frustrated with us. GoodDay 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And there speaks the voice of enquiry and understanding. Good on ya, GoodDay.--Gazzster 04:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Okay, so after a couple of weeks without discussion, have we come to the conclusion that the following wording is acceptable for the fourth sentence of the second paragraph?:

Upon Confederation in 1867, three British North American colonies were "federally united into One Dominion (under the Crown of the United Kingdom)." --G2bambino 15:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's seems to be the accepted version by all. GoodDay 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment, guess I spoke too soon. GoodDay 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, any information value that the word dominion adds is negligible compared to the misunderstandings it engenders. It is completely unnecessary in the lede. Canadian & other gov'ts have retreated from its use, and it has informational value only where its full context can be explicated --JimWae 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No We really should be able to write a succinct sentence in the lede without resorting to a quote. If there is consensus to include dominion there - and I don't see that - there's got to be a better way to do it. - Eron ^Talk 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• No. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, then you'd better all work on something as consise, explanatory, and verified. --G2bambino 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried. Look further up the page. Consensus on this seems... elusive. - Eron ^Talk 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept any of:

1. In 1867, Canada was founded when three colonies united to form a semi-autonomous federation and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America.
2. In 1867, Confederation united three British North America colonies to form Canada.
3. In 1867, Canada was founded when Confederation united three British North American colonies to form a federation.
4. In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada.
5. In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada.
6. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada began a gradual process of autonomy from the United Kingdom.
7. In 1867, Confederation united Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into a federation, with each becoming a province.

DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why's Dominion such a dirty word? GoodDay 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. Very few editors - and, unless I'm mistaken, none of the editors who said "no" above - object to Dominion being used in the body of the article. We are - or at least I am - objecting to its use in the lede. I explained my position on this several times; it's all buried in the tens of thousands of words spilled on this topic further up the page. I haven't commented recently, because I felt I was getting nowhere in reaching a workable compromise. That, and because I didn't quite see the point in continuing when the position I supported was distorted by accusations of creeping republicanism and straw-man arguments - like the notion that opposition to dominion in the lede equals opposition to dominion everywhere. - Eron ^Talk 00:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said 'republicans' were against using 'Dominion' in the lead, are wrong. I'm a republican and I support 'Dominion' in the lead. GoodDay 01:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How does adding Dominion to the lead improve the article? Without sufficient context and explanation, it is not well-understood and can be misleading. That context and explanation is suited for later sections and other articles. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Referring to 'dominion' in quotations makes it clear that the term is to be understood in a context specific to Canada in 1867. Small syntactical objection: it is unecessary to put 'under the United Kingdom' in parentheses. And yes, the whole monarchist vs republican thing is irrelevant, and I don't see any evidence of that in our exchanges.--Gazzster 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see a bit of evidence of that. (I'm not saying that I see the discussion in those terms; quite the opposite. GoodDay is a republican who supports Dominion in the lead; I am not a republican, and I oppose it. But it has been characterized that way.)

Fundamentally, here is what I see as the problem: pages and pages of discussion over one word in one sentence of the lead. That is prima facie evidence that the term is controversial and should, perhaps, be avoided in the lede. - Eron ^Talk 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

For 'evidence', it is curious how you glazed over the lengthy arguments of the originator of this morass before highlighting a truism that is based on observance of argumentum ad populum herein. Quizimodo 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to simply be a demonstration of some strongly held personal hang-ups over one particular word. If anything, we really shouldn't capitulate to emotional reaction. --G2bambino 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see some recognition of that. Understanding your own personal biases is key to writing NPOV. I also like the Dominion title and think it should not be abandoned but I understand it is only a title and does not belong in the introduction of the Wikipedia article. Can we agree then to say the three colonies united in a federation without requiring the "Dominion" title. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; others could learn from my example. "Federation" alone is insufficient. --G2bambino 15:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard you say before that federation alone is insufficient but I don't understand why not nor how adding the word "dominion" makes it sufficient. The sentence in question says that colonies joined together in 1867. The very next sentence (though in need of improvement) discusses the degree of independence. The following paragraph concerns the state of Canada now. I like the title "Dominion" but, without the context and explanation not suitable for the introduction, it does not serve any useful purpose in the sentence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fatigue factor - I'm sorta wundering about that aswell. Is all these discussions & disputings over one word in one sentence worth the time and space they've consumed? GoodDay 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

True, we could spend too long on this and perhaps already have. But surely we're touching on important issues. And one single word can carry great weight. I disagree that our discussion reflects 'personal hang-ups' on the part of certain editors. On the contrary, I have seen sound argument that suggests that the use of the word 'dominion' in this article (and others) needs defining. I notice that (in my opinion) some editors have an altogether outdated understanding of the term. We could of course raise the dread word 'arbitration' and wait for the collective groan. But I think it's best to avoid arb if we can.--Gazzster 15:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No: it should not be in the lead, for reasons stated clearly above many times - a word with this ambiguous meaning should not be in the lead. It can, and does, figure TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER. With appropriate context.

I apologise for the all caps. Fatigue factor. I am also tired of the monarchist / republican nonsense (that is an entirely separate issue, as some have recognised, where opinions do not 100% coincide either way). The "personal hang-up" comment (about others, of course, not about oneself) seems to be a clear statement that some are not actually listening to the points made here.--Gregalton 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Some arguments appear sound, but they've been either decidedly defeated by superior counter-arguments, or nullified by an equally valid counter-point. (The unwillingness of others to acknowledge this is a clear statement that some are not actually listening to all the points being made.) It is thus revealed to us that the "controversy" around the word, which is where this whole debate started, is purely manufactured, and seemingly driven by personal beliefs (corroborating evidence elsewhere, pertaining to the editor who initiated this dispute, supports this theory). Regardless, what proposals do we have for describing the federation Canada became, without, of course, using the word "Dominion"? I suspect we'll have to sacrifice brevity. --G2bambino 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

...aaand this is why I dropped out of the discussion the first time. What you are saying, in effect, is "We are right, you are wrong, and your unwillingness to accept that shows just how wrong you are." Hardly fertile ground for compromise. As to what proposals we have, look just a bit further up in this section to DoubleBlue's post of 23:44, 26 October 2007. Of the ones listed, I like number 4. (It sounds strangely familiar...) - Eron ^Talk 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet, ironically, it works both ways. So, if the pragmatic arguments of each side essentially cancel the others out, doesn't that leave us with no better "anti-Dominion" argument than "I don't like the word" and "pro-Dominion" argument than "there's nothing wrong with it"? Doesn't that mean the conflict is actually being fueled by personal feelings as opposed to legitimate concern for composition and clarity? If so, then I agree with you: hardly fertile ground for compromise, and hence, none has been proposed. --G2bambino 15:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe, again, I largely agree with you here except that I, personally, like the word but believe it doesn't belong in the introduction and that there is a long page here of proposed compromises. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there can be a compromise in this situation; the word "dominion" is either in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph, or it isn't. It can't be partly there. There are other ways to describe the federation Canada became in 1867, but I don't think any are, or will be, as succinct as "federal dominion." Hopefully the list of proposals below will be narrowed down until we achieve some resolution. --G2bambino 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What meaning do you find conveyed in the word "dominion" that is missing without it? DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's commonly accepted as a distinct type of polity within the British Empire; Canada was the first of these. We can replace "Dominion" with a description of what a "Dominion" was, but, of course, that's less concise. Regardless, we've been through these arguments before. --G2bambino 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(In response to G2Bambino): I would have thought that what is a 'superior counter argument' is itself based on a personal assessment. And personal judgements are the very thing you are objecting to. And 'an equally valid counter-point' supposes, does it not, that the original objection is 'valid'? So where's the personal argument there? The 'controversey' is 'purely manufactured'? On the contrary, I have seen intelligent reasoned argument. Intelligent reasonable editors do not produce argument ex nihilo. Supporting what Eron has said, if anyone is resorting to subjective argument, it appears to be you.--Gazzster 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See my above comments in response to Eron. --G2bambino 15:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" around the word: some editors have pointed out the meaning of the word and the nature of the status of dominion are not clear, and hence it should be carried later in the article - two paragraphs later. The nature and title of this paper ("The Development and Significance of Dominion Status") at a conference specifically dedicated to the issue of dominion-hood belies the claim that the controversy is manufactured solely by editors here.

My point above was that claiming personal beliefs is causing others to misunderstand is evidence that one is not listening. And it's rude. ("You can't understand? Must be because your personal belief system is warping your ability to comprehend my argument, which is right.")--Gregalton 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For Christ-sake ... Dominion is pretty plain. Dominion is a country within the British Commonwealth that is a Constitutional-Monarchy, in Personal Union with the UK. That is what it meant in 1867, what it meant in 1982, and today in 2007. People like JimWae are just being willfully stupid. The meaning of Dominion was never unclear ... people like JimWae just hate "Dominion" as all.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really hope we could discuss this as reasonable people without resorting to personal attacks. No one here is being "wilfully stupid"; we have different points of view. Disagree if you wish, but at least show some respect for the opinions of others. I'm tired of being called an "ignorant mob". - Eron ^Talk 02:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if a 1-week recess is in order, allowing everyone to calm down & regroup? GoodDay 15:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Quizimodo 19:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominion not clear

Oh dear, Armchair. Personal attack is the lowest form of argument. In fact, it is a poor substitute for good argument. It doesn't do your case any good at all. JimWae and 'people like JimWae' used reasoned intelligent, respectful arguments to illustrate his points. You, on the other hand appear to find it difficult to respond in like manner. In fact, 'dominion' is not pretty clear at all. Dominion is a country within the British Commonwealth that is a Constitutional-Monarchy, in Personal Union with the UK. 1) There is no such thing as the 'British Commonwealth', it is simply 'the Commonwealth', and the UK is not its head; 2) the constitutional monarchies in personal union under Elizabeth II are now called realms, and have been since her accession; 3)the UK government and Buckingham Palace have ceased using the term dominion since 1948, as myself and others have pointed out repeatedly. If there's a statement which appears 'ignorant', it's this one.--Gazzster 04:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster. Point-in-fact, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is legally defined as a Unitary Kingdom. There are 4 Sub-national Members namely,

Kingdom of England (lead by a King),

Principality of Wales (lead by a Prince),

Kingdom of Scotland (lead by a King),

Province of Northern Ireland (possessing a Governor)

and it is NOT a Realm.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why you are dividing the United Kingdom and going on about unitary kingdoms (ignoring, by the way, the points I made) I cannot tell. But here is the title of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom: ' N., by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen (etc)'. The Kingdoms of Scotland and England no longer exist. The Crowns are united into a single crown. That is why it is a 'United' Kingdom. After the invasion of Wales that country was never actually ruled by a Prince. The sovereign of Wales was the King of England; the title Prince of Wales is purely titular.--Gazzster 01:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, did the 'Fathers of Confederation' have disputes like this over Dominion? Could we be (sorta) repeating history? GoodDay 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Other among the suggestions were "Kingdom of Canada" and "United Provinces of Canada". Lexicon (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as they reached a compromise in 1867, we should adopt that compromise for this article. GoodDay 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The United Provinces of Canada has always been my favourite (as it compares to the United States of America).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the compromise, the Founding Fathers reached. GoodDay 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yaa, I know. The Dominion of Canada is a very good long-form name of this country. I have always liked it. However, I am an English-Canadian (i.e., and English-Speaking Canadian). The objection to this name primarily comes from the French-Canadians (i.e., French-Speaking Canadians) and the Roman-Catholic Irish Republicans. They collectively hate the term Dominion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon: If you cannot participate in this discussion without mischaracterizing and prejudging those who disagree with you, perhaps you should not participate at all. I find that your conduct is pushing the bounds of civility. I would appreciate it if you would confine your comments to the topic of discussion and refrain from speculating on the motives, ethnicity, and political and religious affiliations of the other parties. Thank you. - Eron ^Talk 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Eron.

English-Canadians typically do not have a problem with the term Dominion.

French-Canadians typically do have a problem with the term Dominion.

The Roman Catholic Irish are usually Republican in their sentiment.

What specifically do you have a "problem with" in these observations?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a 'typical Canadian'? A 'typical French Canadian'? I think the stereotype may exist in your own imagination. And why do you suppose that contributors on this page who diagree with your arguments must be 'typical French Canadians' or 'Roman Catholic Irish'? Because they disagree with what you believe is the 'English Canadian' perspective? What sort of circular logic is that? What kind of 'observations' are these? And what kind of wholesale pigeon-holing is that?--Gazzster 04:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster :) I am grateful for your thoughtful reply, and I wish to assure that I meant to disrespect to you. Frankly I like interacting with you very much. Now down to brass-tacks!

The Commonwealth of Australia has only ONE OFFICAL LANGUAGE, namely the English Language. However, the Dominion of Canada (unfortunately) has TWO OFFICAL LANGUAGES, the English Language, and the French Language. The Native-Peoples (the third group) are linguistically divided between English-Canada, and French-Canada. That is simply is ... "the way it is".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My problem with your observations, Don, is that you are presuming to know someone's political views based on their ethnicity, and their ethnicity based on their political views. There are words for that sort of thinking. You also seem to be fixated on some image of Canada that has little in common with the country as it exists today. While the old French-English divide is still present, the Catholic-Protestant divide is irrelevant. And you seem unaware of the many Canadians who don't fit into your neat categories. What it the Sikh perspective on Dominion? Are Haitian-Canadians monarchist, or republican? What do the Jews think of all this? It's all irrelevant. - Eron ^Talk 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Eron. I am not responsible for your "likes or dislikes". We are all free to the believe what we wish, and express it within the rules of conduct of Wikipedia . If you feel that I am violating them (e.g., your vailed suggestion that I am a racist), then file a complaint and don't minse-words.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The rules of conduct of Wikipedia include the statement "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." In your defence of the term dominion, you seem to be poisoning the well, suggesting that those who oppose its use in the lede do so because they "collectively hate the term". You go on to assign those in opposition to certain categories, based solely on this position. I find this conduct offensive, I don't think it contributes to the discussion, and I would appreciate it if you would stop doing it. - Eron ^Talk 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a British/French/Irish/Afro etc Canadian, baptised a Catholic (though I'm an atheist), who happens to support usage of Dominion in the lead. What category do I fit into? Anyways, let's drop this mini-discussion, it has no place here. GoodDay 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. What category to you "fit" into? Well what is your first language? What is the language that you think in? The primary organising principle in Canada is linguistic (unfortunately). If your first language is English, then you are an English-Speaking Canadian (i.e., an English-Canadian) and you are of English-Canada. If your first language is French, then you are an French-Speaking Canadian (i.e., an French-Canadian) and you are of French-Canada (additionally the Native-Peoples are divided between these "Two-Solitudes" ).

Take care, and best wishes eh ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding at your personal talk page. PS- let's end this 'off the topic' discussion. GoodDay 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okkie-Dokkie ... loud and clear :)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So Don, I guess you would agree that this controversy has not been purely manufactured by the editors of this page? --JimWae 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Jim, direct your comments at Don's personal page. It's best this 'off the topic' discussion, discontinue here. GoodDay 22:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)