Talk:Canada/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

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

Restore link to Sports in Canada

{{editprotected}}
Please restore the link to Sports in Canada in the {{main}} template at the top of the Canada#Culture section. It should look like this:

Main articles: Culture of Canada and Sports in Canada

It used to be there, and without it, there is no link to this 2nd tier sub-article (sports are not included in the Culture of Canada article). Thanks, heqs ·:. 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I support this request. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to Sport in Canada and National symbols of Canada. It appears someone had tried to create separate sections for Sport and Symbols, but those sections were later deleted, and links were not restored to the culture section. Mindmatrix 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don't think the link to the symbols article is needed, as it's one of the sub-topics covered in the culture article. heqs ·:. 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request here because it appears to be fulfilled. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Anthem

The Royal Anthem for all member states of the Common Wealth and the National Anthem for the United Kingdom Is "God Save the King" and not "God save the Queen" as stated.

The name of the Anthem, contrary to popular opinion does not change as the gender of the Monarch of the Commonwealth of Nations does. Sammy Jay 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this? GoodDay 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Information from 10 Downing street official website states the name of the Anthem as "God Save the King" [1]. Sammy Jay 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So, during E2's reign, people have been singing the anthem wrong? GoodDay 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what that means. The name of the Anthem has no bearing on the words sung in it. As the gender of the Monarch changes the words in the song switched between "King" during times of a male Monarch and "Queen" during times of a female Monarch. During HM Queen Elizabeth 2's reign the name of the anthem has remained "God Save the King" although the word King has been changed to Queen in the "lyrics". I do hope no one has been singing the anthem wrong. Sammy Jay 00:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just being silly. GoodDay 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We still need a definitive source for this (I'm dubious about taking the word of someone who refers the the Queen as "HRH Queen Elizabeth 2"). --G2bambino 15:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a definitive source supporting the statement that Canada's Royal Anthem is "God Save the Queen". I'm not sure that it is relevant to this article what the name of the Royal Anthem of the United Kingdom is. (Just as, by analogy, the Monarchy in Canada is headed by the Queen of Canada; apparently she has other titles in other places, but they are not relevant to this article.) - Eron ^Talk 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I pointed out that link somewhere else; this royal anthem discussion seems to be going on simultaneously on a number of pages, though I think it's gelling at Talk:God Save the Queen. --G2bambino 15:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all realms have this "Royal anthem"

• The fore-mentioned statement is not true actually.

It is true that Queen Elizabeth is a monarch of many "crowns". E.g. she's pretty much like a executive board member that serves on several different executive boards. In that case, for example a judgement or ruling in one realm really doesn't have any weight automatically in any other realms. So based on that, those crowns in theory do not spill over from one realm to the next.

Example: In Barbados she is styled "The Queen of Barbados". In Canada she isn't styled the "Queen of Barbados" and the "Queen of Canada" as far as Canada's recognition-- she is just styled "The Queen of Canada". The fact of the matter is the Canadian monarch or "crown" has the provision for a "Royal Anthem" as outlined as being one of the "Symbols of Canada" (here 1, here 2) but not all Commonwealth realms have a "Royal Anthem." as part of their monarch's role, duties and provisions.

For example. Canada's [guidelines and practice] it is understood that "God Save The Queen" be played in her(or heirs) presence(or GG). (quote) (here) Playing of "God Save The Queen" at events

"God Save The Queen" has no legal status in Canada, although it is considered as the royal anthem, to be played in the presence of members of the Royal Family or as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and the lieutenant governors. (/end quote)

Barbados' and Saint Lucia's [guidelines and practice] state's even in her presence or the G.G.'s presence the Barbados or Saint Lucian anthems will still be played instead.

(http://www.barbados.gov.bb/bdoscodeitq.htm here 1) (quote) B. THE NATIONAL ANTHEM The National Anthem shall be played -

(a) for the purposes of a salute on ceremonial or official occasions, on the arrival and departure of

 (i) the Governor General.
 (ii) the Sovereign or a member of the Royal family,
 (iii) a foreign Sovereign, Head of State or member of a reigning foreign

imperial or Royal Family,

 (iv) Governors-General of Independent Commonwealth countries.
 (v) Governors of the Associated States, and
 (vi) Governors, High Commissioners of Officers administering the Government

of a dependent territory within the Commonwealth

(b) at the beginning of all public performances in a cinema house.

3. The National Anthem may be played (a) at the completion of any public function, or (b) when toasts are proposed at official functions.

4. The National Anthem should not be parodied in verse or in song neither should it be played in any tempo other than that officially recognises (eighty-eight crochets to the minute). Particularly, the tune should not be used as a dance number or for the purposes of advertisement. 5. When more than one anthem is played the Barbados anthem should be played last. (/end quote)

(http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/saint_lucia/national_anthem/national_anthem_of_saint_lucia.htm here 2) (quote) Protocol for the National Anthem

  1. Whenever the National Anthem is played, all civilians present should stand at attention, men with bared heads.  Uniformed persons should act in accordance with instructions.
  2. All three verses of the National Anthem will be sung.  Normally one verse will be played.  It shall consist of the first twelve bars of the anthem unless otherwise stated.
  3.
   The National Anthem shall be played:-
    a. for the purposes of a salute on ceremonial or official occasions, on arrival and departure of:
     i. the Governor-General
     ii. the Sovereign or a member of the Royal Family
     iii. a foreign Sovereign, Head of State, or member of a reigning foreign Imperial or Royal Family
     iv. Governor-General of Independent Commonwealth countries
     v. Governors of the OECS States
     vi. Governors, High Commissioners or Officers administering the Government of a dependent territory within the commonwealth,

and

    b. at the beginning of all public performances in a cinema house or other public building. 
 4.

The National Anthem may be played:-

    a. at the completion of any public function, or
    b. when toasts are proposed at official functions 
 5. The National Anthem should not be parodied in verse or in song, neither should it be played in any tempo other than that officially recognised.  In particular, the tune should not be used as a dance number or for the purposes of advertisement.
 6. When more than one anthem is played, the Saint Lucia anthem should be played last.

(/end quote)

Further see rules covering the Canadian national anthem. It has been assumed this "Royal anthem" stands in all countries but not all countries play a "Royal anthem" some may play the British national anthem as when any diplomat visits but it doesn't seem she or her heirs or representative are given special treatment in the form of a "Royal Anthem". CaribDigita 01:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although the issue of the name of the Anthem still remains, "God Save the King" is the official name. [2]

Sammy Jay 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be the name of the Royal Anthem of the United Kingdom. However, this suggests that the name of the Royal Anthem of Canada is "God Save the Queen". - Eron ^Talk 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think common sense should prevail, and should (god forbid) Her Majesty ever discontinue her service as our Sovereign Lady, the Royal Anthem's name should be modified according to the gender of her successor. I think this issue about the name of the anthem has arisen before on God Save the Queen. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Anthem at any particular time is entitled as to the reigning monarch. Right now, that is God Save the Queen. In 1936, it was God Save the King. When referring to the anthem over all time, it is God Save the King, since that is the more common gender. The article should be entitled as it is used now and changed if, God forbid, it is necessary to do so. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A minor change

I'd do this myself, but considering it's protected, that's not exactly possible. Anyways, the population density in the infobox and the population density under the headline Geography and climate differ. Please correct this. --Super Martyo Brother 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada's relative geographic size

The article mentions Canada as the second largest (in land area) to Russia. As "Russia" has been broken up into several smaller soviet nations, would that not make us the largest?

Musesshadow 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Canada was smaller than the ex-USSR, which broke up. The largest resulting nation is Russia, which is still way larger than Canada.--Ramdrake 12:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See List of countries and outlying territories by total area for the details. - Eron ^Talk 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Time limit on "dominion" discussion

I opened the last attempt to resolve the "dominion issue" on October 28, and made and RfC not long after that. I'm just wondering how long we should allow that particular survey to remain open. One week? Two weeks? The Canada article is generally a busy page, but so far it seems it's only the same three or four editors involved in trying to resolve the dispute - even the user who initiated the whole affair has gone strangely silent for quite some time. So, we'll have to wrap it up at some point - hopefully soon. Can we agree to make a choice from the above 17 suggestions on November 12? That allows two weeks for input. --G2bambino 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think discussion may continue for a good time more. I suggest that if anyone wants to edit, just go ahead and do it! And well, if the fur flies as a consequence, that's unavoidable, and may even deepen the discussion. I think myself it's unlikely that admin would respond to a request for intervention. The discussion after all is nuanced and rather obscure (but not the less important for that). --Gazzster 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody can edit; the page has been locked for nearly a month now. As of Nov. 12 it will have been one month and two days. I suggest we close the discussion that day, and whichever option has the most support will be inserted. --G2bambino 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL!!! Hello Gazzster.

"And well, if the fur flies as a consequence, that's unavoidable, and may even deepen the discussion."

Here, Here. Let the fur fly!

Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, ArmchairVexillologistDon has been arguing his case without success for several years on this page. The case has been 'resolved' several times (and never in favour of "Dominion") but that hasn't stopped the discussion. Good luck.

And Don, it's "hear, hear" not "here, here". Not knowing stuff like this really doesn't increase your credibility as an export in Canadian parliamentary procedure. 199.71.183.2 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, hold up. So you're saying someone's spelling skills have even the slightest to do with their credibility? I don't have much personal knowledge on the whole dominion thing nor do I really care one way or the other, but this really bothers me. For all you know (s)he could be dyslexic and simply has problems writing things down. I would suggest that if this discussion is to continue in a rational manner that the participants should start basing their judgments of the capability of other editors on logical arguments and the presentation of hard evidence, not simple typographical errors. L'Aquatique ^talktome 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa there yourself, that's a pretty broad brush you are swinging around. "The participants" in this discussion have for the most part been grappling with logical arguments and hard evidence for several weeks and tens of thousands of word - cast your eyes up the page for a sample. As far as I can tell, the above comment is the only contribution made by User:199.71.183.2; that editor is hardly a participant at all. The rest of us have done fairly well at keeping things focussed on the content, not the typography, thank you very much. - Eron ^Talk 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel offended, I was simply making mention of something that bothered me. The reason that I put my comment directly under the offending one rather than at the bottom was to specify that mine was directed toward that user. Frankly, I'm surprised that the discussion has remained as civil as it has considering the controversy it discusses, and for that, I commend you. However, I do call it as I see it, whether or not that is a fault of mine perhaps remains to be seen. Also, I wanted to make mention of it because many people will read this who are not participants, indeed not even editors, and I don't want them to get the wrong impression of how we treat our fellow editors. Carry on, L'Aquatique ^talktome 05:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello 199.71.183.2. Yes, I do have trouble spelling. I am an English-Canadian (i.e., English-Speaking Canadian) who was in early French-Emmersion. I speak and write Fr-english or Fr-anglais. I can't spell for shit, but I have managed to get a B.Sc., M.Sc., and a Ph.D.

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Ph.D., eh? The issue hear isn't spelling but meaning. Do you understand that the phrase is "hear, hear" as in "listen, listen, what he said is right and praiseworthy"? If so, then it truly is atrocious spelling to substitute "here" for "hear". On the udder hand, 199.71.183.2 may have just been playfully poking fun at your spelling. After all he did suggest that you were having credibility problems as an "export" in Canajun parlamentry proseejer. Export urself to Amurrica cuz wee no how to spel verry gud hear. --Richard 05:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in some respects, such as that Americans are generally poor spellers (before everyone and their uncle leaps all over me, I'm American, so I can say it) however I do think it is more complicated than you may think. Here and hear, as I'm sure you know, are homophones, which are generally confusing for everyone. If Don does in fact have a mild form of dyslexia (which I'm not saying he does) he may well have known exactly what he was talking about. I know how it feels, since I'm exactly the opposite: I have no problem reading or writing, but translating speech to text/understanding or vice versa can get tricky- I've been told I pronounce a lot of words funny (usually phonetically) and I have trouble understanding tv, movies, etc without captioning. It shouldn't effect my credibility as an editor, which it hasn't, just as Don's mistake shouldn't effect his. I apologize if I stepped on any toes. : ) L'Aquatique ^talktome 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that tomorrow would be a bit early to close the vote; we are just starting to get some suggestions that are a result of compromise. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I'm actually thinking I'm going to do tomorrow is throw out all the ones that certainly have no support and narrow the list down to three or four. Hopefully either one can be decided on, or some kind of composite. --G2bambino 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting ridiculously long. Can we agree to archive up to, but not including, Section # 57 "A minor change" or does anyone think we still need old proposals on main talk page? DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. We should sign up for one of those bots that archives automaticaly when a topic hasn't been discussed in a long time. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. --G2bambino 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Support using an archive bot. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Support ya got me sold. GoodDay 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Population Density

It says that Canada is 219th in the infobox, but if you click on the link it is in the 180s. Can an editor please fix this? Thanks. BCapp 03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Responsibility to protect

While discussing Pearson's importance (and thus Canada's) in international peacekeeping, shouldn't the Responsibility to Protect also be mentioned? If anyone wants clarification into what I am referring too, please ask. BCapp 03:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on a date mentioned in the history paragraph.

Canadian troops played important roles in the Battle of the Atlantic, the failed 1941 Dieppe Raid in France, the Allied invasion of Italy, the Battle of the Scheldt during the liberation of the Netherlands in 1944.

The failed Dieppe raid occured on Aug 19 1942, not 1941, according to Veterans Affairs Canada.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=feature/dieppe02

HistoryBuff4 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Historybuff4

Good catch. Dieppe was definitely not 1941. Probably just a typo. In future you are encouraged to correct this type of stuff yourself. Thanks! <eleland/talkedits> 19:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, wait. Not when the page is protected :|

{{editprotected|Under "history" please change "failed 1941 Dieppe Raid" to "failed 1942 Dieppe Raid" per above source and all others on the raid.}}

<eleland/talkedits> 19:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. (Could you cut down on the length of your sig, please?) Sandstein (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Raid on Dieppe occured on April 19, 1942 . The Canadian troops were slaughtered. It helped convince the USSRs' Stalin to wait until 1944 for the Western Allies to invade Continental Europe. Dieppe was as significant for Canada, as Gallipoli was for Australia and New Zealand.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on an Assertion re Dieppe and Stalin

The text asserts that the raid on Dieppe convinced Stalin to wait until 1944 for the Western Allies to invade Western Europe.

This is a questionable statement. Dieppe did not change Stalin's behaviour or attitude in any respect. He continued to press the Allies for an invasion of Europe sooner rather than later. At the Teheran Conference in November 1943, Stalin pushed Churchill hard for a deadline for a cross channel landing; Churchill argued for landings in Mediterranean, which to him represented "the soft underbelly" of Europe; Churchill was mindful of the failure at Dieppe, and reluctant to cross the channel.

Rather than affecting Stalin, who would have been indifferent to large numbers of British, American, or Canadian casualties, the Dieppe raid simply demonstrated to the western Allies how difficult it would be to invade a fortified coast. The meticulous attention that the Allies paid to strength in numbers, logistics, deception and secrecy all reflect the lessons learned at Dieppe.

Please remove the reference to Stalin in the article on Dieppe; it is inaccurate. 99.250.165.14 (Talk) 15:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with this sentence?

Well ... what?

"In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada".

This one sentence, in my opinion, could satisfy BOTH the Dominion Camp, and the anti-Dominion Camp. Why don't we just adopt this sentence AS IS, and be done with this?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a little awkward. But if it were simplified to 'In 1867, three British North American colonies federated to form the Dominion of Canada', why not. Personally I still prefer the simplest of phrases, like 'Canada was founded in 1867 by the union of three British colonies.' --Gazzster (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of which way the 'Dominion' debate shakes out, the sentence should not feature the words 'federal' and 'Confederation.' I suggest keeping 'federal,' as in the following example:

"In 1867, three British North American colonies united as a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada". --Rrius (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote results

Okay, as per above, I've closed the discussions and tallied the votes; this marks the one month and two day anniversary of the page being locked. Yay.

Considering a support and oppose vote equals one point, and a weak support and weak oppose vote equals 0.5 point, the results are as follows:

1. 5 in favour/4 opposed acceptable 5/4 1 2
2. 3 in favour/4 opposed rejected
3. 4 in favour/5 opposed rejected
4. 0 in favour/8 opposed rejected
5. 0 in favour/5 opposed rejected
6. 0.5 in favour/4.5 opposed rejected
7. 2.5 in favour/3 opposed rejected
8. 5.5 in favour/4 opposed acceptable 5.5/4 8 1
9. 2 in favour/4.5 opposed rejected
10. 1.5 in favour/4 opposed rejected
11. 1.5 in favour/5 opposed rejected
12. 0 in favour/5.5 opposed rejected
13. 4.5 in favour/4 opposed acceptable 4.5/4 13 3
14. 0 in favour/5 opposed rejected
15. 0 in favour/5.5 opposed rejected
16. 0 in favour/6 opposed rejected
17. 0.5 in favour/3.5 opposed rejected
18. 4 in favour/2 opposed acceptable 4/2 18 4
19. 2 in favour/3 opposed rejected
20. 2 in favour/1.5 opposed acceptable 2/1.5 20 5

Thus, in order of support, the acceptable proposals are:

1. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[3] was formed.
2. In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federation with dominion status.
3. In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada.
4. In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form a federation of four provinces.
5. In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous entity of the British Empire. OR

— In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom.

Now that we've narrowed it down to five, hopefully we can choose one or create some combination/variation of/on them. --G2bambino 17:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on options

• I am very much opposed to #3 because one of the BNA colonies was already called "Canada". For me to support it, it would have to be amended to something along the lines of "the current country of Canada". I weakly oppose #1, we can do this without a quote. I weakly oppose #5, it's a bit long-winded and the term "polity" is rarely used. I support #2, because I think saying "with dominion status" is a good compromise by including the word while not using it as a title. I also support #4, though I would want it amended to make it clearer that the federation mentioned is modern Canada. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks, G2, for your efforts. Per AG, I also strongly oppose #3 (which is why the original article was changed); I'm unsure the proposed amendment would change my perspective -- it seems kitschy. As well, #4 is redundant with mention of 'federation' upfront in the 3rd paragraph. So, in order, I prefer #1 (since it is verbatim with reference and therefore not contestable), #5, and #2. Quizimodo 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose #1, oppose #2 and #5, support either #3 or #4.--Gregalton 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken into consideration the fact that several proposals were added after people had already commented on the existing ones? The last three on the list - two of which made your final five - did not have as full an airing as the other ones. - Eron ^Talk 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of this. --G2bambino 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 and 2, Support 3 and 4, and cannot imagine how 5 could be seen as an improvement on anything. Seriously, folks, this is the lead to a general article; "semi-autonomous polity"? A slash and parentheses?

I truly cannot understand objecting to 3 on the grounds that their might be some confusion over the Canada that was created. If that is a problem, perhaps we need to move the whole article to Canada (country). The article itself begins with the statement "Canada (IPA: /ˈkænədə/) is a country..." That country - the modern political entity - is the subject of this article, and I believe in context it is quite clear that this is what is meant by statement 3. - Eron ^Talk 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Per #5: I think the words in brackets were meant to be an alternative to "British Empire," not an actual part of the sentence. --G2bambino 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps; that was not clear. (And, given that we had 20 options, I think I can be forgiven for assuming that if we were being presented with an alternative phrasing, it would have been given its own proposal.) - Eron ^Talk 23:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that would've merely added to the many options already available. 'Polity' (which is more accurate, but essentially means 'political entity') has since been replaced simply by 'entity'. Quizimodo 17:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I support #3, on the grounds that simplicity is best, especially for a lead. A lead does not have to explain; that is the purpose of the article. And that is exactly what the relevant section in the main body does.--Gazzster 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet it's so simplistic that it isn't really true; Canada was formed 75 years earlier, and along the way the term "Canada" changed its meaning a few times. #4 is only a bit more complicated, yet much less historically ambiguous. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask any Canadian when "Canada" was formed. While many will say "Huh?", those who do have an answer will say "July 1, 1867." I doubt that anyone will say that Canada was formed when the colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were formed, or the united Province of Canada, or the French colony of Canada. - Eron ^Talk 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, AG. Let's please remember that the federal Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867, but the eponymous entities in the years prior. That's the difference between being precise and not. Quizimodo 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Cartier first called the area "Canada" in 1534 but this article is discussing the modern Canada, the "country occupying most of northern North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean", which was indeed newly created in 1867. Previous colonies and places were called Canada and there are even other places today called Canada but clearly our topic is post-Confederation Canada. It would seem odd in the complete context of the first two paragraphs not to name the country in this sentence about its formation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course the topic of this article concerns the modern state, but we are dealing with the crucial sentence regarding Confederation and what Canada became in 1867. We cannot mention Confederation without even alluding to what preceded it and what it was or became upon its inception in the lead ... and it didn't become just a federation. I also agree that we need to note the name of the resulting entity — and that's the benefit of #1. Quizimodo 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Canada occupied most of North America, extended from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward to the Artic Ocean in 1867. --G2bambino 17:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Canada that was created in 1867 does indeed. It didn't in 1867 but that's irrelevant. This article is not about Canada in 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That section of the article is indeed about Canada in 1867; frankly, I can't believe you missed that. --G2bambino 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose #1 & 5 as clunky and awkward to read. #2 does not work because of the long-discussed difficulty with saying "dominion status" which requires too much elaboration for the intro. #4 is not bad but #3 is the better. I think better yet might be to say: In 1867, three British North American colonies united in a new federation named Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And this variant isn't clunky or wordy? There is also no allusion to its quasi-independence upon Confederation, which #5 accomplishes in spades. Quizimodo 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Next sentence please. This sentence does not need to accomplish everything; just that this new country was formed in 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And, conveniently, the next sentence currently reads "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." It needs some work, but it's not too bad. - Eron^Talk 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not just in the next sentence please, since the federal entity formed upon Confederation was not fully autonomous. And no one is saying that the sentence needs to 'accomplish everything', just to highlight the sort of federation that Confederation yielded -- and yes, that's one with 'dominion' status or similar. The next sentence can stand for some improvement, but no argument about what its emphasis should be. Quizimodo 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist that this sentence include mention that it was under British rule or a monarchy? Somewhere in the latest archive, that's what you said you required and I presume you intend to mean when you say "dominion status". DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to insist that this sentence not mention it, despite the fact that it was so? Quizimodo 22:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't. It's already better said in several other sentences. It doesn't need to cloudy this one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To not include it in that sentence, above all others, clouds the issue more than anything. In fact, your own proposal beforehand to sub in 'Dominion of Canada' but not 'dominion' given the context (e.g., as quoted in the constitution) remains perplexing. Quizimodo 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said at the time, I was trying to find a compromise. I gladly drop the proposal because the title is unnecessary in the sentence. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How was your proposal in any way conciliatory? Given the above, I am sure I am not the only editor concerned by your apparently contradictory -- if not confusing -- actions. Quizimodo 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I could support that amendment; it's simple yet it's clear what it's talking about. I still prefer #4 though, saying that it started out as four provinces adds a bit of extra information without making the sentence any more awkward. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) *I could live with DoubleBlue's proposal, but if we are going to modify the sentence, might I suggest another look at the (just barely) rejected proposal 7: "In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada." I think it is important to include the link to confederation. If it is still considered insufficiently clear to which "Canada" we are referring, we could say "In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form the modern country of Canada." - Eron ^Talk 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And this variant isn't clunky? As well, it was not as grand in scope upon Confederation, being 1/5? its current size. Quizimodo 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'd happily drop "the modern country of;" it is superfluous in an article that is manifestly about the modern country of Canada. The size and scope of Canada on the day it was created are irrelevant; no one suggests that the United States of America wasn't really created on July 4, 1776 because it was a fraction of its current size on that date. That example also works if we consider political structure and level of independence. It is a somewhat arbitrary date; full independence wasn't secured until the American Revolutionary War was won in 1783, and the current political structure of the country wasn't established until the adoption of the current United States Constitution in 1787. But the date everyone remembers is July 4, 1776. - Eron^Talk 19:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, the 'modern country of Canada' was formed in 1999, with the creation of Nunavut. Anyhow, imprecision of the proposed wording aside, the accretion of territories is part-and-parcel of Confederation and the modern-day entity, so its hardly irrelevant; as well, the following sentence can be built to incorporate that (and suggestions are abound regarding this). Anyhow, this article is not just about the 'modern country' but pre-Confederation -- otherwise, we wouldn't note its inhabitation by aboriginals and historical underpinnnings, including the former Canadas. 'The modern country of Canada' contains as many words as 'a federation with dominion status' or (plus two) 'a semi-autonomous entity of the UK' or similar, with the last two at least being more meaningful (perhaps not to you or naysayers), so again resistance to including that fact in the lead and in the appropriate context is untenable. Quizimodo 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Canada was formed in 1867 with the BNA Act. Other provinces and territories were added to it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not precisely. The Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867 upon Confederation of the Provinces of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Quizimodo 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Those colonies ceased to exist after 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes: they were united into a federal Dominion, still under British rule. Quizimodo 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is the country that still exists today, which is the subject of the article. That country has a history, which includes events that occurred in the various colonies and provinces that pre-dated its creation - which is why they are discussed in the article. That history continues to the present day, and includes the various territorial accretions. But the watershed moment at which those colonies became the new political entity is universally regarded as July 1, 1867. That is the day that the country of Canada was created. To ignore that is to be as wilfully blind as you seem to think we "nay-sayers" are. The most meaningful thing we can say of Confederation is that it created Canada. Adding the various qualifiers is unnecessary in the lead. Yes, yes, we all know that Canada wasn't truly independent then, but it is not necessary to go into that in the lead. Someone skimming the article should be able to come away from the lead possessed of a few simple facts, including the fact that the country of Canada was created on July 1, 1867. If they want to know some details of the gradual process of independence from Britain, they will just have to wait until they read the next sentence, or perhaps go as far as the history section a few paragraphs down the page. - Eron^Talk 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You and I may know of the country's quasi-independence and conditions upon Confederation, but that is not the point. Others may not, and to not include this notion in the lead plus that of the titular entity which arose with this event is wilfully blind and a disservice to the readership. The infobox already and specifically notes this important date, and adding contextual and meaningful yet succinct details regarding that in the lead will only help to enhance understanding of Canada's progress towards autonomy. To do anything less for not what makes little sense. Quizimodo 15:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• In essence, in many respects I feel we've come full-circle. The original edits were made precisely because of the lack of clarity of the original, inaccurate, simple version ... yet that is precisely what a number of editors seem to support. Yes, the intent of the introduction is to summarise, and (as demonstrated above) notions of Confederation and Dominion are inextricably linked and can/have been summarised. We are not simpletons -- any of #1, #2, or #5 are far more informative than other variants, without being excessive nor necessitating an overhaul of the rest of the introduction. Version #5 is a conciliation, merely linking to but not exhibiting 'dominion', yet it is still rejected by some because it is 'clunky and awkward'? There is definitely something very wrong with this. The three above are at least accurate. In response, #3 and #4 are simple and also awkward: #3 is imprecise (since 'Canada' existed before Confederation), and #4 doesn't even name the polity; either of these may also require modifications elsewhere in the introduction that are beyond the purview of this discussion (e.g., redundant notions of 'federation'). In summary: the term or notion of 'dominion' is either in the introduction or it isn't, and support for the latter -- considering that this is information which anyone can verify -- remains untenable. Quizimodo 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 'dominion' is either in the introduction or it isn't, and support for the latter remains untenable: So your argument is "I'm right and you're wrong". This will go nowhere. I withdraw from discussion until sanity returns. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixation aside, it's not about right or wrong, but the very 'five pillars' you invoke -- including verifiability or, more to point, the equitability of content. Your own comments and actions have whittled away at those pillars as far as this lengthy discussion is concerned, so have fun. Quizimodo 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about your veiled accusations of bad behaviour. "I am sure I am not the only editor concerned by your apparently contradictory -- if not confusing -- actions," and "your own comments and actions have whittled away at those pillars," show the same failure to assume good faith that you accuse others of. If you have a problem with any editors conduct in this discussion, there are ways to raise it appropriately. In the absence of any concrete examples of this alleged bad behaviour, these dark mutterings seems a bit like an attempt to poison the well, if not engage in an outright ad hominem argument. - Eron^Talk 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And I am concerned with your waffling. The well was poisoned long before I pointed this out: one needs to only glance at the excessive discussion (archived) above to observe the hypocrisy and lack of good faith by the instigator of this morass (who first suggests it would be fine to include 'dominion', then does a 180 and vehemently rejects it, pushes a malformed opinion about the term, misreads one key reference, uses a teenage one as the crux of another, and levels threats that this is a monarchist position), and the contradictory if not hypocritical behaviour of other editors, including User:DoubleBlue (who proposed including 'Dominion of Canada' yet not 'dominion', only to strangely withdraw the proposal after the fact). Arguments have been provided for and against, with much evidence provided for inclusion (including the constitution itself, still strangely deprecated by various editors) and little direct evidence against, which has been inflated and interpreted to manufacture a dilemma which doesn't exist in actuality. Wikipedia is not their mother, nor is it yours or mine. I am not innocent or inviolable either, but if editors are unwilling or unable to compel or persuade and have their arguments withstand scrutiny, then perhaps it is better off that they withdraw.

This discussion, all the result of a hyper-reaction to ONE word in the lead, is all but concluded: from the many options scrutinised, we have five options for the lead which have some degree of support -- the one with the most support is one which includes a direct and germane citation with that word and is as clear as crystal, and the next one also includes the term. Unless compelled otherwise, I will be asking that the article be unlocked so that this version can be inserted. Continuous discussion for so simple a notion -- and verifiable to boot -- and despite this article being locked for more than a month is an insipid and inexplicable disservice to editors and users. If you or naysayers cannot or will not accept that version and this fact in the lead of article, it is not our problem. Quizimodo 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Phew! Beautifully put.

Speaking of the instigator of this morass, he hasn't been active on Wikipedia for, strangely, one month.

I'm with Quizimodo on this, the option that is verified by reliable sources does have the most support. We should request the page be unprotected. --G2bambino 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have to question your conclusion that the one with the citation is the one with the most support. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the only one I see with a citation is #1, and you seem to be the only editor to be in support of it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How quickly we forget: did you not participate in the poll with 20 options? This was archived, but I have restored at least this to the talk page. The option with the citation had the most relative support. Quizimodo 15:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not forgotten the 20-question poll; in the first round of voting #1 did indeed have a good level of support. However, now that the options have been narrowed down and we are working on compromises, you are the only person arguing strongly in favour of that option. You will likely find it hard to close the debate while standing alone. I have the impression that you are now focusing on the first round only because you won there, and if your option had support in this round, you would be focusing on it instead. I personally think that we are slowly making our way towards a compromise here. Splitting the sentence in two and including the term "dominion" in the second sentence (as per the discussion below) seems like the best compromise proposed so far. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have already indicated my support for a number of options -- for three of the five finalists in particular and one of which is most conciliatory (#5), yet that has received little attention or has been dismissed (rather incorrectly) as awkward vis-a-vis other versions. (In the truest sense of compromise, I would've expected this option to be the focus of our collective efforts.) Naysayers (for lack of a better word) have fixated on versions #3 and #4, which while simple are (perhaps because of that) just as awkward if not imprecise and rather misleading, and they are certainly not conciliatory. I could point out one or few of the prior polls, or any number of prior points. Nonetheless, it is hard to dispute a version (#1) which contains a direct citation from the constitution, which above others and amidst the artificial smokescreen is why I strongly support it. And despite all of the above, I shouldn't need to defend that -- #1 is rooted in a fundamental Wikipedia policy. So, resistance to that is predicated on something else and said editors should be more introspective regarding the reasons why. Relatedly, I suspect that naysayers are just as well unnecessarily drawing out the debate and fixating on #3 and #4 precisely because those options did not prevail. Really, how much longer does this really need to be drawn out and the article locked? Please ... I will proceed as above.

In the interim, we could consider splitting the sentence as put below, but how is that advantageous to the succinct versions already polled upon? Can someone actually place this proposed version for our scrutiny? Thanks. Quizimodo 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of splitting the sentence is that it we could clearly explain the union that took place in one sentence, and then clearly explain what Canada's status was in the next. We would have two short, clear sentences and not have to awkwardly explain everything at once. I only oppose #1 because it tries to say too much at once. If the referenced quote had its own sentence to explain it, I would support it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Eron. I'll say it plain ... I've always found your editing style on this Canada page offensive.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Offensive? Interesting. Please provide some examples of my offensive editing. - Eron^Talk 02:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. It's good to be an American! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.108.159 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I found this entire discussion fascinating. I use Wikipedia a lot but have never ventured to either edit or add to any discussion. I looked up Canada just out of curiosity because my daughter's family will be moving to Canada soon -- our two grandchildren ages 12 and 4 have been raised in the U.S. and know nothing of the history etc. -- they only know that they love going to the "Cottage". I wanted to send the elder a link to the article.

My point -- having been raised in Canada but not a historian per se (and also being older) -- I remember when we were called "The Dominion of Canada". In that context, it is a capital D, correct ? My recollection may be imprecise ... but would it be wrong to say "The Dominion of Canada was formed through the British North America Act of 1867 uniting three colonies". A sentence could be inserted between the above and the "gradual independence" sentence if you also feel the need to clarify that Canada was a dominion vs a Dominion.

Another approach, if you feel that the intro is getting too wordy, would be to remove all of this to a historical section and leave the intro to focus on what Canada is now, vs its progression to full independence.

Cheers. Thompsw 12:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We already include the word "Dominion" in the history section, and I don't think anyone opposes it there. I kind of like your idea of adding a sentence between the "in 1867" one and the "gradual independence" one. However, I have a feeling that the anti-dominion crowd will be any more pleased to see it there than they were to see it here. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible third and final round

I think the above discussions have been converging on two consensus ideas: one is a hybrid of #3/4, and the other is something with a quoted reference in it along the lines of #1 that possibly split into two sentences. Could we maybe finalize each of these two options and vote between the two? We might also want to split the above talks into "discussion of #3/4 option" and "discussion of referenced option" so the two camps can finalize their proposals. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I'd be happy to participate in the discussion. I would appreciate it if the discussion could focus on the proposals; I'm getting rather tired of arguments focused on the participants. Comments about "naysayers", "waffling", "artificial smokescreen(s)", and the assumption that editors who disagree are "instigators of [a] morass" who are resisting the truth for POV reasons are not helpful or constructive. This is clearly a contentious topic that people feel strongly about; all the more reason to focus on content and not contributors. Some of the comments - and out of respect for the wishes of the plain-spoken ArmchairVexillologistDon I'll name him specifically - are descending to the level of personal attack. This tone has already driven several editors away from this discussion. - Eron^Talk 19:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Eron. Thank you for speaking plainly. I appreciate your candor. You dislike my "bluntness", and I dislike your "word-smithing", and "rules-lawyering" of the Wikipedia code-of-conduct.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Great idea - whatever it takes, to get the traffic going again. GoodDay 19:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll create two sections below to hold the talks. Each camp can hammer out their proposal, and then we'll meet back up when they're done. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Finalization of option A: #3/4 hybrid

The best one I remember off the top of my head was "In 1867, three British North American colonies united in a new federation named Canada." --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Simple, straight-forward, and should be non-contentious. I like it. Ground Zero | t 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this. I'd like to take a stab at adding the next sentence and some appropriate wikilinks:

"In 1867, three British North American colonies united in a new federation named Canada. This began a gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom, culminating in the Canada Act 1982 which severed the last dependence on the British parliament."

If we go with this, we can also drop "A federation" from the start of the next paragraph as well. That sentence would then read:

"Now comprising ten provinces and three territories, Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state."

I've included the additional sentences here for context. It has been argued that options 3 and 4 didn't include enough detail on the political structure of Canada. It has also been stated that opposition to the use of dominion in the lead is based in a dislike of the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as its head of state. As the full cotenxt shows, that isn't the case; the political status of Canada, including the Crown, is detailed in the complete lead. - Eron^Talk 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for the lead sentence or even the lead paragraph to deal win detail with the political structure of Canada any more than it need deal with the economic structure of the country, its demographics, history, geography, heraldry, transportation and communications systems, climate, culture, etc. These are all dealt with in the appropriate sections of the article. Ground Zero | t 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should say the political status of Canada is sufficiently described in the complete lead. I don't think the three sentences above are going too much into detail for the lead. - Eron^Talk 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Finalization of option B: referenced version a la #1

I favour this one: In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[9] was formed. This part: "Dominion under the Name of Canada," is TAKEN DIRECTLY (word-for-word) out of the British North America Act 1867. The addition of the word "federal" comes directly out of the PRE-AMBLE of the British North America Act 1867. The CAPITALISED Dominion comes directly out of the British North America Act 1867, thus the CAPITOLISED FORM (i.e., Dominion) should be cited, and NOT the lower case form (i.e., dominion). The lower case form is non-standard in its historical meaning (i.e., Dominion does not mean the same thing as dominion , and Dominion is the proper USAGE). --ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, why can't we make a hybrid of #1 and #3? In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada.[9] followed by: 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. --G2bambino 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is a good reason to have an encyclopedia article about Canada: so that people don't have to wade through the legalese of a constitution. The language of the constitution is both archaic (since it dates from the nineteenth century), and complicated. A simple, clear intro is what is called for. Ground Zero | t 22:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello GroundZero, there is nothing complicated or archaric about the idea of a federal Dominion. The only reason to suppress it (that comes to my mind) is that people do not like that we are still a Constitutional-Monarchy, and that the Queen is our symbolic figure Head-of-State.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please don't start that English monarchist vs Irish/ French republican stuff again. GroundZero, yes- I agree, we don't need such terms in a lead. All a reader basically wants to know is what the article is about. To satisfy said reader, something like 'Canada is a country formed in 1867' is all that is required. If he or she wants to read the details, they will go to the main body of the article where all the constitutional implications are explained. And there we can discuss dominions and federal dominions and confederations to our heart's content.--Gazzster 08:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, back to the Dominin -vs- dominin dispute - Canada Day used to be called Dominion Day not dominion day. GoodDay 16:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In Canadian English all holiday names are capitalized. The capitalisation thing seems very clear to me. The word "dominion" is a title, but not a name. The Dominion of Canada is a dominion named Canada. It works just like titles for people: The Prime Minister of Canada is a prime minister in Canada. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh nooo, just when I thought I hit a home run -- somebody takes it away. GoodDay 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As Gazzster explains better than I can, the article clearly deals with the issues of the constitutional status and head of state in the appropriate places in the article. No one is trying to take those out ot the article. There is no suppression of anything. This is about writing a lead sentence in the Wikipedia Style. The Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles says:

First sentence

The first sentence should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise one that puts the article in context. Rather than being typically technical, it should be a concise, conceptually sound, characterization driven, encyclopedic definition. It should be as clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter allows.

Cribbing text from the 1867 constitution does not meet this description. Let's keep it short, simple, and clear. And please leave the conspiracy theories out of the discussion.

This debate isn't about the first sentence, that was settled months ago. This whole debate is about the sixth sentence. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I look pretty silly, don't I? I haven't been following this that closely because I was way too involved in previous disputes on similar matters and thought I should try to sit this one out. As Miss Emily Litella would say, "Never mind". Ground Zero | t 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, sorry to muddy the water further here, but... I like option "B", but it gets poor marks for writing style. Rather than
"In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada" was formed."
I would favor active voice and verbs next to their subjects, as in
"In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada".
<eleland/talkedits> 00:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Opening_paragraph still has useful guidance here:

If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.

Which is the proposals best meet this guideline? I don't think that a proposal that lifts language from the constitution meets this test. Ground Zero | t 01:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, option B better satisfies these points. A hybrid of #1, specifically:

• In 1867 through Confederation, three British North American colonies united to become a federal 'dominion under the name of Canada'.[9] This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the UK, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act 1982 which severed legal dependence on the British parliament.

OR even a version of #5:

• In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom. This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the UK, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act 1982 which severed legal dependence on the British parliament.

(or similar) are already short and to the point, yet more informative than alternates: if anything, versions #3/#4 fail the test you invoke, GZ, because they are so simple as to be imprecise and of limited informational value. There's no doubt that federalism was an important tenet of Confederation, but Canada was federated into a particular sort of entity -- yes, a 'Dominion'. As noted above, various reputable publications, in their summary of Canada, already describe it (or the entity produced upon Confederation) as that. Effuse opinionating on this page aside, this article needn't be different and including this information in the lead fulfills a number of functions: it precisely yet succinctly describes the semi-autonomous entity that was under the purview of the UK upon Confederation, and the next sentence elaborates. Attempts to oversimplify this issue with simplified language are moot since Canada's creation and road to independence are not so simple, with numerous authorities recognising 1931 as a (if not the) significant date in Canada's historical evolution (Statute of Westminster 1931) -- e.g., National Geographic. GZ, do you honestly believe that including this single word in the 2nd paragraph of the article is anything but concise and clear? The proposed text is certainly not legalese: even in its basic form, 'dominion' means 'domain', which is no more complicated to understand -- even less so -- than 'country', 'state', 'federation', 'confederation', et al. -- however, we've been through that. The fact that #1 contains text (or perhaps a paraphrase, with lower case) from the constitution is wholly encyclopedic: per policy, it is both inviolable regarding this point and equitable though necessary given the hyper-reaction herein to its inclusion. Variant #5 is also conciliatory and should satisfy both sides. And, if memory serves, I believe you supported including "dominion" in the lead long ago. [4] [5] So ... Quizimodo (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How long do we wait for a response? --G2bambino (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not until Godot, that's for sure. ;) Quizimodo (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead proposals

I can't believe so many people have wasted so much time debating *one* sentence. It's a wonder Canada stays together with all this argument over language. Mon Dieu, c'est incroyable!

Let's marshall the facts and go from there so we can get this done!:

1. 1 July 1867 - Effective date of the British North America Act, under which three *provinces* (not "colonies") of the British Empire became, in the words of the Act, "One dominion under the name of 'Canada'."

2. According to McNaughton, the original legislation proposed the name "Kingdom of Canada," but this was rejected by London for fear of upsetting the United States (which Sir John A. MacDonald called "the Republic to the South.") The word 'dominion' was taken from Psalm 72:8 (speaking of the Jewish Messiah): "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth." This Psalm is also the source of Canada's motto, "From Sea to Sea" - which reads in Latin, "A Mare Usque Ad Mare."

Side note: The United States Senate, on hearing the news from "way up north", passed a resolution expressing "grave misgivings on the establishment of a monarchial state to the north", and immediately entered into negotiations with Britain and Russia to prevent Canada from reaching the west coast. Alaska was thus sold to the United States later in 1867, but the Crown Colony of British Columbia declined America's attentions and joined Canada instead in 1871.

3. The three British provinces which joined together to create the Dominion of Canada were the Province of United Canada, the Province of New Brunswick, and the Province of Nova Scotia. United Canada was created in 1841 with the merger of Upper and Lower Canada, both of which were created in 1790. Previously, UC and LC were part of the British Province of Quebec. (Side note: The Lower Peninsula of Michigan was part of Upper Canada until 1796; the Upper Peninsula, until 1817; and Drummond Island was part of United Canada until it was handed over to Michigan in 1847.) The Province of Quebec was given that name, and provincial status, under the Quebec Act, 1774, having been previously (along with most of the eastern third of the United States) La Province Royale de la Nouvelle France, from 1660. The Province of New Brunswick was carved out of the Province of Nova Scotia in 1784. Nova Scotia was formally chartered by Charles II in 1661, but it was already the French province of 'Acadie' at that time, and had been since 1604. The newly formed Kingdom of Great Britain won possesion of Acadia in 1713, as a prize in the War of the Spanish Succession (aka Queen Anne's War).

4. Canada is a confederacy, like the United States - but the basic units of the two entities are just reversed. In the United States, the basic unit of government is the individual state. Per the U.S. Constitution, all powers that are not explicitly assigned to the United States (that is, tp the federal government) are powers of the several states. In Canada, the basic unit of government is the federal state. Under the Canadian Constitution, all powers that are not explicitly assigned to the provinces are reserved to Canada (i.e., the federal nation-state).
In either case, a federal state is a sovereign nation-state composed of constituent sovereign nation-states operating in perpetual federation, as a confederacy. This confederacy thus operates with a dual exercise of sovereignty. The federal state exercises sovereignty in certain areas of jurisdiction while the constituent states exercise sovereignty in other areas of jurisdiction. Neither has power to infringe the jurisdiction of the other - that's what makes it a confederacy.
By comparison, the United Kingdom is a semi-federal state. The four provinces - England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland - have distinct boundaries and identities, and three of them have their own provincial legislatures (England does not yet have a provincial legislature of its own); but the national legislature has nonetheless unbridled authority over the entire country on all matters. If the Scottish Parliament does something the national parliament does not like, the national parliament has power to reverse it. Conversely, if Michigan or Ontario do something within their jurisdiction that their respective federal authorities do not like - as long as it does not enter upon federal jurisdiction - Washington and Ottawa have no power to act in place of the state/provincial government.

5. Because Canada used the word "dominion" instead of "kingdom", the birth of federal Canada was also the birth of the concept "dominion status." Certain dominions, however, did not use the word in their official names, viz., the Commonwealth of Australia (1901, the second-oldest dominion), the Union of South Africa (1910), and the Irish Free State (1922). In 1931, all of the dominions became fully indpendent of U.K. within the Empire (transforming from 'British Empire' to 'British Commonwealth' to 'Commonwealth of Nations') - except for Newfoundland, which did not ratify the Statute of Westminster before the 1934 national crisis that resulted in imposition of direct rule from London; and Canada, at Canada's request, because the federal and provincial governments were unable to agree on an amending formula for the Canadian Constitution.

6. 1982 - With the Canadian 'Constitution Act, 1982', and the parallel British 'Canada Act, 1982', the last vestige of dominion status was finally ended, and the Dominion of Canada became simply 'Canada.'

So, with all that, probably the best wording for the lead sentence under dispute (along with a few others after it) would be:

In 1867, three colonial provinces of British North America - United Canada (now, Ontario and Quebec), New Brunswick and Nova Scotia - confederated as "one dominion under the name of Canada". The name 'dominion' was taken from Psalm 72:8 ("He shall have dominion also from sea to sea..."), and was chosen over 'kingdom' to avoid seriously provoking the United States. The choice thus inadvertantly created the imperial concept of "dominion status" - that is, a self-governing nation-state that was a sovereign entity within the context of an imperial construction.

209.244.43.17 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So that they're collected in one place and can be discussed individually:

To be fair, I'm including all set out above, and in the order in which they were proposed. Forgive me if I've missed any, and/or please add more if thought of. Hopefully, via a process of elimination, we can decide on one that is acceptable. --G2bambino 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• Comment: I have refrained from voting until now, but would like to object that this poll seems ridiculous and absurd. Having seventeen different versions to vote on takes far too much time and resembles a diversionary tactic more than anything. I'm sure that there are others who, while they may have opinions on the subject of dominion or not (in the lead), did not feel that voting on seventeen different proposals to be an effective use of time. There was essentially one issue on the table (remove dominion from the lead) and putting forward a dog's breakfast of options to vote on just muddies the waters.

If there is to be a vote or poll to be considered valid, it should be simplified to a simple yes/no.--Gregalton 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's been done; about four times now. Any other suggestions? --G2bambino 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Which essentially means that the fact that it's still being discussed essentially boils down to "I didn't get what I wanted the first time, so I'm just going to raise it again until I've gotten my way, consensus be damned." That approach isn't looked kindly upon by Wikipedia. Bearcat 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes: this would indeed seem to apply to the instigator of this morass. Quizimodo 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat. Let us look up the definition of the word consensus,

consensus.

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

An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

I have "been at this" particular issue for YEARS. Yes, I have. This, in my opinion, is the first time that this issue has been thoroughly sussed-out. Thank you everyone. No matter what the result ... "there has finally been a fair-day-in-court" on this one.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not mean that everybody has to agree before any solution is implemented. It means that once a discussion has been hashed out for the appropriate length of time, everybody has to agree to abide by the majority decision whether they personally like it or not. Bearcat 00:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat. As per your view on what consensus means, you and I actually agree (on the definition, that is!). As per if the full-process has actually occured ... I believe, I feel, that it is actually happenning NOW (instead of before, when it felt like a "railroad-job" to me).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• As far as the voting goes, what I see (with perhaps only 1 or 2 exceptions) is that those who want dominion in the lede oppose every proposal that does not have it in the lede, and those opposed to it in the lede oppose every proposal that includes it. And yes, 17 alternatives obscure the central issue here. There are some editors who vigorously object to the inclusion of "dominion" (the article existed for years without it being included in the lede) & have presented their reasons. Those wanting "dominion" in have not addressed the issue of what meaningfulness (other than its being something of a legal remnant) it is supposed to add to the lede. --JimWae 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I emphasize again that it was not conferring dominion status that effected any difference in 1867. What changed from the UK perspective was that where there had been 3 colonies, there was now just one. From the Canadian perspective, there was now an additional level of self-government - the relationship with the BRITISH crown did not effectively change, it was just one step removed. 1> Dominion status does not signify any real change in status, 2> its meaning has changed since 1867, 3> it has been abandoned by Canadian governments & by the monarchy, and 4> introducing it in the lede raises more issues than are ever answered in the article. It does not have significant informational value. It is a relic of paternalism & colonialism, and it is something of an embarassment to explain "no it doesn't really mean that Canada is still a colony of the UK". It is incongruous to me that anyone would find it something to be proud of. The title dominion may still apply because it is a historic remnant/relic/anachronism that has not yet been updated. Conferring the title in 1867 did not in any way change the relationship of "Canada" to the UK & the UK crown. Canada was still a colony of the UK for decades after 1867 - so mentioning it in lede does not add any information about what happened in 1867.--JimWae 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Voting on 17 alternatives suggests future conflicts over whether further editing of that sentence will be "allowed", whereas voting on the central issue would not "fossilize" that part of the lede. I find I now prefer an alternative not even there -Something like: In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form the present Canadian federation, starting out as four provinces. (this adds a significant part of the history [4 provinces] and clarifies why "three" is even included here ) --JimWae 19:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This is rather a by-product of polls that were launched by editors (at least initially) with no discourse or input from the other side, so of course they are contestable and mean little and have resulted in this multivariant poll. Quizimodo 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • After a vote on the core issue, there could then be an opportunity for those who lose to suggest what they could live with. Up until now, there has been no discussion of how one side is going to attempt to accomodate the other. Nothing has been done to build a consensus, all that has happened (in writing) is that opposing viewpoints have been hardened. I hope that some better understanding of the opposing viewpoint has taken place - even if not acknowledged (in writing) --JimWae 19:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with JimWae. Simple yes/no votes will always end in a stalemate, this many-optioned poll is now the best option we have of finding something that most people can live with. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the point of the above poll? The option most supported is the one most people can live with. Frankly, I don't care where this goes after tomorrow. I'll tally the results to see which is the most popular, and let the rest of you fight it out. Someone aptly predicted this would be decided by fatigue rather than consensus; it seems they may well have forseen correctly. --G2bambino 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with G2. And I believe you did propose a run-off at some point (i.e., selecting a few with the most support initially, and then doing it again), only to have it dismissed or lost amidst other comments on the talk page. Quizimodo 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if there's a couple that are close, I thought they could be pulled out for more detailed analysis. I'm really just hoping to weed out the excess. --G2bambino 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As WP:Consensus says, a poll is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then, we're on the right track. --G2bambino 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: naming controversy

If you want to settle the dispute over whether Canada is a dominion,federation,or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps, you should actually go as far as calling a government office to find out and confirm what the country's official name and status is. It might have to get to that point. Adamv88 18:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no dispute over what the country's name is. There is a dispute over how to describe what the country became, and I don't know of any technology that allows one to call backwards through time. --G2bambino 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"There's no dispute over what the country's name is. There is a dispute over how to describe what the country became"

Hence, I said they should ask about the country's official name and status. Adamv88 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that there's no dispute over Canada being (presently) a Dominion (it isn't), only how to describe what it became (past tense). --G2bambino 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, Canada is still a Dominion. Clause 3 of the British North America Act 1867 stated explicitly that Canada is a Dominion, and this clause has NEVER BEEN REPEALED. Therefore, Canada is still a Dominion.

Why do people NOT GET this?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello 75.162.0.146. The long-form name is the Dominion of Canada and its status is a Dominion within the British Commonwealth of Nations.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a dominion (small "d") but not a Dominion (capital "d"). There is no longer a British Commonwealth of Nations, only a Commonwealth of Nations. --G2bambino 04:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It is a CAPITOL "D" ... Dominion. The lack of usage of "British Commonwealth of Nations", does not constitute an abolishment of the term British. G2bambino, you and I, may be Constitutional-Monarchists, but we have very different interpretations on a great many things ... indeed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, small "d" dominion, as in a territory under a sovereign's authority, not capital "d" Dominion, as in a semi-autonomous entity of the British Empire (and, all together a separate issue to whether ot not it's called the "Dominion of Canada"). Further, you may choose to use the word "British" before "Commonwealth of Nations," but the Commonwealth of Nations itself calls itself the "Commonwealth of Nations." --G2bambino 05:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, LEGAL DOCUMENTS use the term Dominion (e.g., the British North America Acts), and the term British Commonwealth of Nations (e.g., the Statute of Westminster 1931). Since NONE of the BNA Acts (1867-1975), and the Statute of Westminster 1931 have been REPEALED ... these LEGAL TERMS (i.e., Dominion, British Commonwealth of Nations) are still in force.

G2bambino please direct me to the LEGAL DOCUMENTS that REPEAL these terms?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"British Commonwealth of Nations" is used in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster. Preambles do not have legal effect.

You confuse the differences between usages of the word "dominion": general usage, usage within the British Empire between 1867 and approximately the 1970s, and usage within Canada's official name. --G2bambino 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, I do respect you. I really do. The point where you and I differ in on the "Split-Crown's" Constitutional-Monarchy Model. With regards to the usage of Dominion, Canada was founded as a Dominion in 1867, and the Canada Act 1982 did NOT change that , in other words Canada is still a Dominion (today in 2007). Canada's Dominion Status has never been legal repealed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting; perhaps you're right. The Statute of Westminster, which remains a part of the Canadian constitution, does define what a Dominion is, and says Canada is one. I'm unsure if any subsequent legislation overrides that. This is, however, still a different discussion to any about the country's name; that was the only point I was trying to make. --G2bambino 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello G2bambino. Okkie dokkie ... point-taken.

Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It shows you what little I know, I thought the BNA was repealed in 1982, with the adoption of the Canada Act? GoodDay 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it was simply renamed the Constitution Act, 1867. --G2bambino 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We've got two viewpoints here, I reckon. First there's the legal one, which believes that a term used years ago and unrepealed is carved in stone. Then there's the pragmatic viewpoint that believes names should reflect historical context and the common understanding. The British do not always go to the trouble of repealing laws. They tend to be lazy that way. Rather they often just drop the observance of the law. This is the case with dominion, dropped by 1948 and replaced by 'realm' in 1953. In a beach in Adelaide, South Australia there was a by-law prescribing fall length suits on beaches that was not repealed until the 1980s. Does that mean that until then that beach was a fully-clothed beach? Certainly not. The authorities simply forgot to change the law! I don't think anyone has trouble understanding that Canada was constituted the 'Dominion of Canada'. Some of us are only asking, is it still a dominion? And we also ask, what is a dominion anyway?--Gazzster 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See this summary of the history of the use and non-use of "Dominion of Canada": <http://www.filibustercartoons.com/dominion.htm> 64.201.55.205 (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Justin Jaron Lewis

Canadian boundary changes

The Canadian boundary changed that occurred in WW II is not mentioned in the article.

The paragraph below is a copy of the given in the Wikipedia article about Princess Margriet, and mentioned the temporary boundary change.

"Princess Margriet of the Netherlands (Margriet Francisca, born January 19, 1943)was born in Ottawa, Ontario, as the family had been living in Canada since June 1940 after the occupation of the Netherlands by Nazi Germany. The maternity ward of Ottawa Civic Hospital in which Princess Margriet was born was temporarily declared to be officially part of the Netherlands so that the princess would be born on Dutch soil."

I think this should be included. Mayjune24 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that being too particular? I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that is much too specific an item for this general overview article. - Eron^Talk 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very much too detailed. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Are any changes going to be applied or not?

Are any changes going to be applied or not? We are sitting here doing nothing. When is something going to happen?

federal Dominion seems fine.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think, this dispute has gone on so long - that everybody may have forgotten what the arguement was about. It would seem the dispute has been left with an open-ending. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to apply any changes. Nothing has been said with sufficient evidence to require any changes. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to listen to your opinion 199.71.183.2, as you we not courageous enough to sign your own "comments".

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 199's comments are signed just like yours are. - Eron^Talk 04:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Eron. The 199.71.183.2 is by definition "un-signed".

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a number can be a perfectly good signature.--Gazzster (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gazzster. Yes ... it is also un-identified. This is effectively un-signed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I ask this question at the risk of sounding grumpy. What does it matter? GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What have we decided??

The Domininon dispute seems to have either dried up with no solution OR editors have tired of the discussion - perhaps forgotten about it. What happened? GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess ... the anti-Dominion Camp is pouting. They will wait until people forget ... and un-do the result of our debate. Namely that

federal Dominion

is an acceptable term to be included in the Canada article. These people will not rest until the Dominion term is completely dissociated from Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this decided ages ago? Dominion really only applies in the history section. And please hold the rhetoric such as "pouting." I believe all parties would like to retain an adult, constructive discussion. CMacMillan (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

CMacMillan wrote,

Wasn't this decided ages ago?

No. It was not.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

150,000b of text to figure out how to configure about 150b of text! Congratulations! vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 07:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe we were awaiting counter-arguments to the cited versions/variants produced above -- none have since been made, so presumably they shouldn't be problematic. And, yes, this is absurd ...

So, given this and as indicated previously, in the next day, I shall be requesting that this article be unlocked so that one of those versions can be inserted. Quizimodo (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, have indeed tired of the discussion and endless variants. Yes, we have ended up where we were some weeks ago: a version without dominion (I emphasize again, in the lead only, dominion is followed only slightly later in the main article text), and a version with dominion. We were voting on these two variants then, and somehow no vote can take place without endless commentary and new proposals (20 of them!) and various accusations. We have ended up where we were to begin with, and it would be better to have a simple vote and stick to that. For simplicity, inclusion of dominion in lead or not would be the best phrasing, most of the rest is just muddying the waters.--Gregalton (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the current 2nd paragraph of the lead, I reckon three variants have been actively discussed with some modicum of support. Yes, these endless discussions are tiresome -- resistance to including simple, clear, cited, concise, and germane text from the constitution (and corroborated elsewhere) in the 2nd paragraph of the lead have muddied the waters far more than including this ONE word alone. Counter-arguments for inclusion have either been dissuaded or remain unconvincing. There can be no further discussion about noting the federation's inception in the (2nd paragraph of the) lead without including the integral -- and collateral -- notions of Confederation and Dominion in the (2nd paragraph of the) lead also. Quizimodo (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that (all) verifiable information be included in the lead, only that information included in the lead be verifiable; this distinction is the crux of the matter. Likewise, it is also possible to violate neutrality by including borderline information that is not needed and has archaic meanings that are, at any rate, covered in depth several paragraphs later in the same article. In short, one group of editors believes it is not needed in the lead, another group that it must be included in the lead.

I'm not accusing anyone of harboring Monarchist, Republican, Fenian tendencies, or just plain Popery through the linking function. I'm also not declaring that your arguments are unconvincing, simply that I find them to be so - as you do mine, and so be it; this is precisely the circumstance for a vote. (I have not tried to dissuade your arguments on the assumption that, as verbal constructs, they would not be capable of free will or independent courses of action, but clearly these are strong arguments indeed).

And finally, AVD, please stop with the repeated accusation that anyone is trying to excise or otherwise exclude dominion from the article. Dominion, with explanatory information and history, comes 325 words after its current location, or 142 words after the table of contents (by a text count). This hardly amounts to repressing the term.--Gregalton (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton. So why not say in the first sentence "Canada was founded on July 1 1867 as a federal Dominion".

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the reasons have been outlined above: I believe the term was ambiguous and uncertain then, and is more so now, and particularly to the uninitiated. You and others disagree and find the arguments unconvincing. Now, please do me a favour and explain why its inclusion in the lead is essential (since it is covered a few short paragraphs later in detail). I mean this in all fairness, I have heard many times refutations of arguments against removing it from the lead (which I find equally unconvincing), but I honestly have not heard an explanation of why it must be included in the lead.--Gregalton (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton. Again,

"Canada was founded on July 1 1867 as a federal Dominion".

What is incorrect and un-verifiable in this statement? In other words, why should this not be in the lead paragraph?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Quizimodo has gone to more effort than the anti-Dominion crowd and created a hybrid that does not use the term. Regardless of my feelings on this, there has been no great uproar over this proposal that clearly is a compromise of sorts. Thus, I believe this disucssion is finally done and the article can be unlocked so Quizimodo's wording can be inserted. --G2bambino (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

G2: could you clarify what the hybrid is that you're referring to? (I may quite honestly have missed it).

AVD: please read my para immediately above yours for explanation, and explain why it must be in the lead. I have made an effort to explain why I believe it should not, please do me the courtesy of responding to a direct question. You should not have to agree with my explanation to respond.--Gregalton (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He gave two variants; in his words:

"A hybrid of #1, specifically:

"In 1867 through Confederation, three British North American colonies united to become a federal 'dominion under the name of Canada'.[9] This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the UK, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act 1982 which severed legal dependence on the British parliament.

"OR even a version of #5:

"In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom. This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the UK, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act 1982 which severed legal dependence on the British parliament."

I'm speaking about the second one. --G2bambino (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

G2: Thank you. I can live with the latter, although "semi-autonomous entity" is a bit lourd. <whinge>(And in all honesty, why does even this variant have to have dominion hidden in the link? It comes across as a way to get rid of it while still keeping it.)</whinge>--Gregalton (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and your 'whinge' is partially the point -- it should satisfy both sides. Quizimodo (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I believe the link is piped to Dominion for uninitiated reader benefit, and rightly so. Though Quizimodo's proposal replaces the succinct title "Dominion" with a longer description of what a Dominion was, and this means the removal of the word "Dominion" for no other reason than personal fears of it, I too can accept this suggestion. I say put it in and get this over with. --G2bambino (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This compromise hybrid is the composite discussed here. This was proposed as option B, following discussion of the five proposals that were drawn from the original twenty proposals. (Yes, it is all a little hard to follow.) What seems to be missing here is a reference to the corresponding option A.

The reason that there was "no great uproar" over option B is that, for the most part, it was only discussed by those who were already in general agreement with it. I'd note there was arguably even less uproar over option A.

The discussion of these two options was proposed by Arctic Gnome here. The proposal specifically stated "Could we maybe finalize each of these two options and vote between the two?" Only the first part of that process has taken place. There is no justification for declaring that consensus has been reached on using option B in the article; the only apparent consensus is among those editors who agreed on option B and were refining it.

Finally, and again, I wish people would stop referring to an "anti-Dominion" crowd. As has been pointed out time and again, we are only discussing the lead. I have seen no editor take a position that the article as a whole should not refer to the Dominion - only the lead. And "personal fears" of the word? Please. - Eron^Talk 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Soe it's down to two options (currently being finalized); that's great - there's light at the end of the tunnel. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone declared a consensus had been reached, only that an option was put forward that didn't use the word "Dominion" and which was met with little opposition from those who don't want the word "Dominion" in the lead (hence, the "anti-Dominion crowd"). After, what is it now? two months? and the disappearance of a good number of those who were previously involved in the discussion - most likely from fatigue - it just seems time to put in this uncontroversial compromise. Enough with the voting, which doesn't form a consensus anyway. --G2bambino (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, insert the compromise. Our long national nightmare, is over (actually an American qoute, see Gerald Ford). GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree completely. I can't speak for any other editors, but the compromise referred to met with little opposition from me because I understood the discussion to be aimed at refining it before it would be presented, along with option A, for consideration. I feel a bit like some sort of bait-and-switch has taken place here. We were presented with two options to be refined and then considered; why exactly have we skipped the consideration phase? To use another American reference, this is like acclaiming the winner of one primary election as President without considering the other party's candidate. - Eron^Talk 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I iterate G2's comments above. EM, how exactly would you refine it, then? You have been mum on this point and, frankly, have had plenty of opportunity to analyse, dissect, or suggest edits to it. As demonstrated above, Option A is so simplistic that it's kitschy (and IMO needn't receive any more consideration) and it's definitely limited in perspective; Options B are not, and also include notions you were previously adamant regarding (e.g., Statute of Westminster, increasing autonomy better put). This article has been locked for almost two months now for this, and that continued state serves no useful purpose and is a disservice to editors and users. A number of commenting editors seem to support the hybrid and, frankly, your opposition to it seems to be in the minority, so unless you have something earth-shattering to put forth, I will proceed as indicated above. Quizimodo (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Our long national nightmare continues (a Canadian quote, from me). GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The BNA act, which began the discussion of One Dominion (their caps) says that "The Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada" (BNA, 1867, S.3) I don't know who created the concept of a 'federal dominion' or even what it's supposed to mean, but there doesn't seem to be evidence to support it. I resent the pro-dominion, anti-dominion labels since they constitute some nod to a controversy. Yes, Canada was known as the Dominion of Canada, unofficially, until the mid-fifties, and was created as a dominion. There is unlikely to be an argument there, but what exactly is a federal dominion and who coined the term? CMacMillan (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure who coined the term 'federal dominion'; however, if you're trying to imply that the phrase is an original concoction, you are mistaken. Upon Confederation, Canada became a federation and was entitled a 'Dominion' and, per sources above, remains that in title [12][13]: what exactly is your challenge with a succinct synthesis of the two terms, particularly given the numerous sources above which use that phrase, precisely [14] or not? In essence, it is no stranger than referring to a 'unitary dominion', 'federal republic', or the like.

Anyhow, attention has focused to the second of the Options B above, which links to the term but doesn't name it (e.g., "a semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom"). Quizimodo (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Attention has been focussed on option B by those who supported it in the first place. You noted above that I didn't comment on it; that is because I wasn't interested in refining it because it wasn't a proposal I supported. As to option A being "so simplistic that it's kitschy," that is a matter of opinion, I suppose. I think it is clear and to the point - just the thing for the lead. it is certainly not your place to declare that it "needn't receive any more consideration." I find option B awkward and unwieldy - as it must be, for it is trying to shoehorn into one lead sentence some things that can really be better explained two or three paragraphs later, in the body of the article. I am really unhappy with the fact that having whittled twenty options down to five, and then to two, several editors seem to have abandoned the idea of seeking consensus. It is now being presented as a fait accompli that option B has been accepted. This is made clear by your statement "your opposition to it seems to be in the minority, so unless you have something earth-shattering to put forth, I will proceed." I don't believe I need something "earth-shattering", frankly. I have presented my opinions, and I am not the only one who shares them. - Eron^Talk 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you have no intention in paying further attention to hybrid Option B, and I (and others) have little or none in A, that's that. The former is conciliatory; the latter is not. Speaking of which, a number of other editors have grudgingly agreed to the hybrid B above -- I/we do not need your consent to move forward. Quizimodo (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a Featured Article deserves better than grudging consent for its lead. I didn't say I had no intention of paying attention to B; I said I didn't discuss it when it was under refinement because it wasn't the proposal I was interested in refining. I've posted both below for comment; I am interested in hearing what others think about them. - Eron^Talk 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe a featured article needn't be locked for almost two months because of personal demons regarding a truism. Quizimodo (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Personal demons"? I'm trying to be civil here, but what the hell? What personal demons? Is it not possible for you to understand that an editor can hold a different position on something without it being somehow personal?

And please, can I ask you to stop all the stealth wikilinking to WP:NPOV, WP:POV, and the like in an effort to assert that the option you agree with is neutral and that the one you disagree with is not? If you think A is POV, tell us why. Constantly accusing those who disagree with your preferred version of POV-pushing is not appropriate. - Eron^Talk 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is a hyper-reaction -- it has been read.

And, NO I will not stop linking as needed: a spade is a spade. I have already pointed out the deficiencies of A. Quizimodo (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin: HDI Update

{{editprotected}} Not knowing myself how much longer this debate may or may not go on for, it may be a good idea if an admin could update Canada's Human Development Index stats to correspond with the new data released today. The new information is on the HDI page --Colonel Cow (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Colonel - This is what I dislike about edit wars, all they do is get articles locked (like this one). And who suffers? the innocent do. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Have amended this as requested. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Population mistake

The 2007 estimate doesn't show a figure, only some red text reporting an error, and I can't fix it because I don't know what the problem is, and the page is protected. Someone the Person (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, someone fixed it. Someone the Person (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lamest. Edit. War. Ever.

We really need to get this over with. Is anyone not embarrassed by this? Let's get it done, archive and move on. Harsh words have been flung, arguments repeated, links linked, arguments repeated again, polite requests rebuffed, etc. Polls have been anarchic, no question can be posed wihtout comment posted with new versions and comments on comments and new polls before the first one is done. This has turned into one of those discussions where the only sane solution is to leave it.

Let's get this over with. And let's get some apologies happening. And review the number one rule. And read the related articles really carefully if involved in any other protracted edit wars, particularly those related to the monarchy. (No monarchist/republican slight intended, but what is it about the combination of wikipedia and monarchy-related subjects?)

In reviewing a bit of this sordid back and forth, one sensible solution (of course from someone not involved) that stands out if we can't agree and get the thing unlocked by choosing one and moving on: "Another approach, if you feel that the intro is getting too wordy, would be to remove all of this to a historical section and leave the intro to focus on what Canada is now, vs its progression to full independence. Cheers. Thompsw 12:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)" Thank you, Thompsw.

Let's either pick a version in twenty-four hours or cut the intro down until a version can be finalized. UN statistics agencies are keeping up with the world faster than we on this one sentence. Almost everyone involved in this (including me) has been exceedingly stubborn - and as much as I would like to say some have been more exceedingly stubborn than others, I won't.

And my own mea culpa: I have been sarcastic, not always when it would be helpful, but when it just felt nice. I apologize.--Gregalton (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will comment succinctly. I agree with many of your points: this is a lame edit war -- this good, high-traffic article has been locked for two months now due to contention regarding a single notion. It was precipitated out of ignorance, and IMO extended just the same. To me the primary rules are the policies upon which Wikipedia is based: the presentation and synthesis of verifiable information in an equitable way. Of course, some choose to ignore all rules (also policy) -- given this protracted debate, I can see why.

As with many endeavours in life, people should and must compromise -- and rarely are both sides satisfied by compromise. We must all try to transcend our biases regarding the topic and get back to the task at hand; once done, progress can be made. And despite the rigmarole to date, progress has been made, but not enough. I believe I and consorts have been conciliatory; now others must do the same. Option A is not an attempt at compromise (and nothing to date has compelled me or others to believe that it is); Option B (or variant) is. Whittling down content in a comprehensive compendium (as proposed by Thompsw) wouldn't serve any useful purpose but to admit that reasoned editors have failed to compromise and is the easy way out. But life isn't easy.

Often above, I might also have demonstrated prolixity and brusqueness; if necessary, I apologise for that. However, I will not apologise for trying to build a reputable article just because other editors may have personal challenges regarding certain notions, nor will I refrain from calling editors to account when necessary. I also do not think that we should cast away prior discourse and, so to speak, reinvent the wheel. This is, after all, a talk page: the primary tool in this venue to help effect progress. The pernicious lock on this article despite lengthy discourse herein has been and is a disservice not only to editors but to users whom we are here to aid and (perhaps) to self-fulfill through the joy of editing. Yes: let's get on with it, but let's also do so judiciously, with the aforementioned in mind. Quizimodo (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh cookie cutters, you guys beat me to it, I was just gonna say the same thing. This discussion is a deserving candidate for the lamest wars page. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy folkes, I feel that the phrase,

"Canada was founded on July 1, 1867 as a federal Dominion".

(with Dominion as a capitol D) should be included in the Canada article. If the words federal Dominion (capitol D) are not included, I will not support the change. Anyone who has read the British North America Act 1867 and understands it can not object to term federal Dominion. If they do object ... they should simply read it again. Then if they still don't see ... then read it again. Ad Infinitum if required. Please ... lest this "discussion" proceed ad nauseam.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we restore the lead in question to what it was before all this 'Dominion' edit wars & discussions began? Forget this whole disaster ever occured. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That won't work: the prior lead (though long-standing) was imprecise and imbalanced regarding the very notions we are discussing now. That's why it must be dealt with. Quizimodo (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

AVD's gracious effort in the spirit of compromise ... ahh bollocks. Sorry I bothered. If after all this the capitalization of a single word ... see you all in the annals of WP:LAME.--Gregalton (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton. How did I insult you directly?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

AVD, let's not split hairs -- as per the 'dominion' article, that word needn't always be capitalised, just as 'republic' is not generally; even moreso if a paraphrase is used: 'one dominion under the name of Canada', for example. Anyhow, the more popular options are being discussed above, so let's focus on those, eh? Quizimodo (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Quizimodo. You have been very supportive in this debate, and I thank you immeasurably. With regards to Dominion versus dominion ... they do not mean the same thing. In my opinion, Dominion is the proper choice. However, this "debate" would not of gotten as far as it has without your kind efforts. Do as you see fit.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlock this article

Can we please unlock this page, while letting the discussion continue? The fact that it's been 'locked' this long, is IMHO embarrassing (exempting the locking Administrator). GoodDay 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I will request it, as alluded to above. Quizimodo 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Misworded Intro

In the intro the word "of" northern North America should read "in" northern North America, thus the intro must be rewritten. (improper grammer). I've also noticed several other Articles relating to Continents and/or countries where "of" should be changed to "in". For Example: "America is a continent of the Western hemisphere". When, should read "in" the Western hemisphere. Intuitionz (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't believe this to be improper grammar, but rather just perhaps differences in regional word usage. I can be a "citizen of the world", as well as at the same time be a [Canadian] "citizen in the world". Slightly different meanings, in the example I use here, but neither is improper grammar. For the record, I do prefer your suggested wording, but it seems like a rather minor change to be concerned with considering that the article is still locked due to other, more controversial, discussions.Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the intro, I don't see the wording you were questioning. Were you perhaps reading an earlier edit?Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is a slight difference in usage but it does matter. For Example: Our City is "in" our Province, "in" our Country. not Our City is "of" our Province, "of" our Country. "of" just doesn't seem correct I guess. Intuitionz (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for new Intro: Canada (/ˈkænədə/) is a country situated in the western and northern hemisphere spreading over most of northern North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean. It is the world's second largest country by total area, and shares land borders with the United States to the south and northwest.

If the Americanss need more discription on their country so do we. Intuitionz (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you guys discussing anyway? Clarify please. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• The purpose of geographic info in the lede is to help anyone unfamiliar with the location to find the country on the globe/map without giving erroneous information. If someone cannot already find North America, then "in the western and northern hemisphere" is not going to help them. The US situation is entirely different because it is not entirely in North America. There is nothing to be gained by bringing disputes with the US page here. Not every country will be found in the same way.--JimWae (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Environment

There should be a selection regarding the environment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjk82 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

French population?

The article talks about "French population" in Canada, instead of what would be much more accurate "French-speaking population" or even "Francophones". Since the article is locked I can't fix that. --Taraborn (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I found only one example and I fixed it. Please add any other cases you find here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ENVIRONMENT

Most of the wikipedia countries have a paragraph about the environment - why not canada? Is her environmental record that bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingforever (talk • contribs) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, is it? GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be awesome to have one, but we would have to be careful with length. This is a lengthy article as is, and we would also need to be careful as to not jeapordize the FA status with uncited claims, NPOV and poorly written prose. -- Reaper X 20:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, also, I should be allowed to write in part the environmental section. {{editprotected}} --Fightingforever (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to unprotect the article and watch it for a while. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected - please avoid edit warring

As requested above, I am going to remove full protection from the article. I will be watching it for several days. Please note that edit warring is forbidden by policy, even if it does not violate the three revert rule. Instead of edit warring, if content you favor is reverted, bring the matter to the talk page. If the phrasing of the lede continues to cause disagreement, consider an RFC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks CBM; fredom for the innocent editors, yay. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be a newbie question, but when does the protection go away. According to the protection log, there has been no change since the 10 October imposition of full protection. According to the history page, the protection template was removed on 8 December. If the removal of full protection is not to have immediate effect, can we at least have the protection template back? I believe it is helpful for those poor souls (like me) who are lulled into a false sense that they can make contributions to this article. -Rrius (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

map?

Map? Notthe600 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Elaborate? -- Reaper X 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Major political parties"

there is a statement "Canada's four major political parties" under "Government and politics" that needs to be cleaned up it is unfair to say there is only four major political parties. This should say Federal political parties and the word major should be removed or the paragraph revised.

you could say that Canada has four parties with members of parliament. if you insist on keeping it as major political parties it would seem prudent to include the Green party of Canada which got 4.48% of the popular vote but failed to get a seat last election. for reference the next lower was the Christian Heritage Party of Canada with 0.19% of the vote and the next higher was Bloc Québécois with 10.48%.

clearly the Green party deserves to be considered a "major political party" but I understand that it may be confusing to include a party with no elected seats, so if you feel that is the case please clean up the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyg5 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the Greens "clearly" deserve to be called "major". I am not sure where I would draw the line, but it would probably be at 5 or 10%. Because a party's being major is subjective, I agree with your suggestion that the paragraph be modified to say that there are four parties with representation in parliament and will modify accordingly. -Rrius (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I won't make the change. I read a few days ago that the article had been unlocked, but it is protected now. I guess this conversation continues, then.

I am not Canadian, and while I understand a bit about Canadian politics, I know very little about the Canadian Greens. Do the Greens have a recognizable impact on Canadian politics by holding seats in the provinces and territories? Do they have a recognizable impact on Canadian politics from the outside? -Rrius (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Green Party is hardly a major party in Canada. They've yet to elect a Member of Parliament or have a Senator etc. It's not easy being green. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent polling shows the Green Party at 13% support for the last several months. This puts them only 3% behind the NDP, and, looking at national support, 3% ahead of the Bloc Quebecois. If Canada had any form of proportional representation, the Greens would probably elect several MPs with fairly little difficulty. Even without seats in Parliament, I believe they do have an impact on politics. (For example, in some ways, their success makes it easier for the Conservatives as voters who might have gone to the Liberals or NDP go Green instead. Of course, many Green voters are also disaffected Tories, so that cuts both ways.) - Eron^Talk 15:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of what our criteria is for what makes a political party major or minor. Whatever you guys/gals decide. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard to claim that a party with no seats in Parliament and (as far as I know) no seats in any provincial parliament is major. Plenty of people would consider that a party with only one or two seats is minor. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any objection to "Four parties have substantial representation in the federal parliament: the Conservative Party of Canada..."? -Rrius (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is good way to put it. Representation is objective and verifiable; descriptors like "major" and "minor" are not. - Eron^Talk 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply go by official party status and state that four parties currently are represented in the parliament. (Which excludes the dwindling number of Progressive Conservatives in the Senate, btw...) So, how about "Four parties are currently represented in federal parliament: The Conservative Party of Canada..."

There is no need to get into "major or minor," which often is contingent on the particular political climate anyway - after 1993 was the Conservative party a "minor" party? You'd think so due it having only two seats and therefore not eligible for official party status in the House. But few would consider that party to have been a "minor" party. Canada Jack (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the section as it stands: Four parties have substantial representation in the federal parliament: the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party (NDP), and the Bloc Québécois. The current government is formed by the Conservative Party of Canada. While the Green Party of Canada and other smaller parties do not have current representation in Parliament, the list of historical parties with elected representation is substantial.

There are two problems I see here. One, what is "substantial"? As I said above, if we simply note that four parties meet the criterion in the House for official party status, we need not worry about the arbitrary designation of "minor" "major" or "substantial." Two, at least one other party IS represented in parliament - The Progressive Conservatives. They now fall below official party status, but nevertheless have members, so the line about other smaller parties not having representation in PARLIAMENT is, simply put, wrong. It is true for the House, though.

Here is a suggested reword: Four parties meet the criteria for official party status within the federal parliament: (list the parties)... While the Green Party of Canada and other smaller parties do not have current representation in the House of Commons, the list of historical parties with elected representation is substantial. Canada Jack (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The first part is irreproachable: factual and to the point. I don't like the second part: who cares if the "list of historical parties" is substantial? (Can a list be substantial at all? Only in the sense of quantity, not the other senses).

Perhaps we could broaden here: "While other parties (generally smaller) do not have current representation in the House of Commons, some of these parties have held individual seats or even party status in the past, and some parties have considerable influence at the provincial level (including forming provincial governments."

I don't think my phrasing is great here, but it is worthwhile considering / noting that the party configuration at the federal level is not the only factor in national politics (either now or historically). Perhaps also noting that some parties (e.g. greens) get support across the country, but not concentrated enough at riding level to get seats.--Gregalton (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a substantial use of "substantial"... Your suggestions sounds good to me. How about:

Four parties meet the criteria for official party status within the federal parliament: the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party (NDP), and the Bloc Québécois. The current government is formed by the Conservative Party of Canada. In the most recent election, the Green Party of Canada fielded candidates in every riding, garnered 4.48 % of the vote, but failed to elect a member. Other third parties have elected members in the past and some have gained party status, while retaining larger influence at the provincial level, including forming provincial governments.

I think this satisfies those who saw a need, owing to the recent high level of support for the Greens, to mention them. While they did not elect any members, as noted, they did field candidates for every riding, a significant political feat. So, even if support falls off in the polls (currently 13 per cent), the paragraph need not be altered until the next election. Canada Jack (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I like your phrasing much better, and the approach does address those issues; we may want to say "for example" for the Greens, to avoid having every other example come up - i.e. Greens are a relevant example now. Minor suggestion would be (if we could keep it from becoming too wordy) that there have been purely provincial parties.--Gregalton (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tolerance

I was wondering about the section on Canada in Racism by country, and really, are the statements made that true?.The way the paragraph is written, it claims Canada is seen as "progressive, tolerant, diverse, and multicultural".

But isn't that POV?.Is there any thing in this article atleast to support the idea of how socially tolerant canadian history really has been?. Rodrigue (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Which bit of Racism by country do you think is wrong? It seems fair enough to me. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying you agree with the generalization made about the country?, 'cause there aren't any sources, and I don't know what that would be based on except personal opinion. Rodrigue (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the statement in racism by country is that Canada is often depicted as progressive, tolerant, diverse, and multicultural. Which is not a POV generalization about what the country is; it's a simple statement of fact about how the country is generally portrayed in media sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to find references for big generalisations like this. One place where Wikipedia is necessarily weak is overview articles like this, where in a conventional encyclopedia it would be essentially the writer's educated judgement. Trying to write something where you have to reference each statement is going to be very difficult. I can't imagine that we are going to find an unbiased scholarly article "comparison of racism in Canada and the US" because the writer of such an article is going to take a huge quantity of flak; the only people who will want to write such a thing would be those with a point to prove. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But if writer was really just stating popular opinion, where are those so-called media sources?.If several reliable sources can be quoted as stating somewhat that Canada is relativly racialy tolerant, that would atleast prove the idea even has any support, in media or otherwise.

and the generalization didn't have to be made anyways, perhaps letting the facts speak for themselves, instead of stating whats hard to prove would'v helped. Rodrigue (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare

Let's take a look at the two "refined" options:

• Option A:

"In 1867, three British North American colonies united in a new federation named Canada. This began a gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom, culminating in the Canada Act 1982 which severed the last dependence on the British parliament."

• Option B:

"In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom. This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the UK, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act 1982 which severed legal dependence on the British parliament."

Which one looks preferable for the lead? I'd like to hear some opinions from those who haven't already expressed them at length as I don't think any of us have perspective on this any more. - Eron^Talk 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot care to also provide the links as proposed, why bother? This is a wiki after all, where links to articles are as important as the text and add much-needed context.

Anyhow, even on its face (without links), B is superior to A: it notes Confederation, notes the semi-autonomous federation which it yielded, and clearly yet succinctly elaborates about the growth of the country and its increasing autonomy over time. Quizimodo (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You have made your opinion clear already, as have I. I'd like to hear what others have to say. - Eron^Talk 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I may continue to at will. Quizimodo (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the first of these two options.--Gregalton (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

For the lead, the second is superior. --G2bambino (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

About option B: how can a country be 'semi-autonomous'? It is either autonomous (self-governing) or it is not. This type of hair-splitting is not necessary. I really do not see why the barest of descriptions cannot suffice for the lead. The details arwe fleshed out in the main body! All this smacks of putting a pinhead under a microscope to count the number of angels dancing on it. How about this:

'The present state of Canada was founded in 1867'. Short, concise. Now, how painful was that? --Gazzster (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the point: Canada was NOT a full-fledged bona fide independent state upon Confederation, and arguably it did not become that and independent until 1931.[15] That is why it is crucial to indicate upfront that it was a British dominion at inception (or similar, explicitly or through wikilinks) and the other details regarding increasing autonomy ... and that is why B is superior to A.

On the contrary, the minimalist approach is rather painful and won't work -- this is an encyclopedia, after all, which is comprehensive by definition. And, yes, editing in a venue such as this does require scrutiny of pinheads for angels that may or may not be there. Quizimodo (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, on could say Canada didn't truly become independant until 1982 & other may argue we're still not fully independant, due to the fact we have the same Head of State as 15 other countries. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And some people argue the Queen is actually a gopher, but that doesn't make them right, nor do fantastical speculations on Canada's independence have any part in this discussion.

As usual, I agree with Quizimodo; the lead is meant to be a summary, not as vague as can possibly be. It's ridiculous that this debate began because one user - now no longer involved in any way - disputed the use of a word, yet, now that it's agreed the word will be removed, some people are still squabbling over linking to the definition of the word! Give me a break! --G2bambino (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put. Quizimodo (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Due to the fact this dispute has gone on for so long & had so many twists? Embarrassingly, I forget what the actual dispute is & who started it all. At least we all agree when Canada became independant -1867-. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In reminder, despite digressions and prolixity, the crux of this dispute is the precise syntax of the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph as it pertains to the entity that materialised upon Confederation. See above regarding contention concerning the date of independence. I believe we are agreed that, in 1867, 'one dominion under the name of Canada' was created. How can we not be? :) Quizimodo (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• If we say Canada BECAME something on a certain date (as option B says), the natural presumption is that Canada existed both before and after that date, and that its status changed on that date. Neither is true. Instead the entity now known as Canada was FORMED on that date. Instead, also, there was also no change in status toward autonomy on that date. Where there were previously 3 semi-autonomous colonies, there was now one semi-autonomous colony that was no longer called a colony but called a dominion. This colony/dominion had no additional autonomy that the previous colonies did not also have. Dominion in 1867 neither denoted nor connoted any additional autonomy over the previous status as a colony. It was not until the 20th Century that "dominion" came to mean a further step toward autonomy. Option B raises complex issues & is too long for the lede --JimWae (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Inaccuracies abound -- this was somewhat dealt with long ago. Well, of course Canada existed before Confederation.[16][17] At that time, the resulting entity received new powers within a federal system and acquired more over time. It was the inaugural 'Dominion' of the British Empire, a prototype for others -- federal (e.g., Australia) and unitary (New Zealand) -- that followed. Your riposte is based on the flawed premises that users may not or should not know the difference between Canada pre- and post-Confederation, and also assumes that 'Dominion' meant nothing to begin with (see below). Based on your logic above, we would also have to eliminate the first three sentences of the 2nd paragraph, since they also do not deal with the 'current' state' but its historical underpinnings and incrementalism regarding autonomy (just as Option B does). Arguments regarding the length of Option B are moot, as it is no more or less lengthy than other options discussed previously. This is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, which by nature is comprehensive -- given the rigmarole above, that added context in the lead is appropriate and required. Anyhow, if the syntax is truly an issue (which I dispute), we can consider an alternate (with links):
    • "In 1867 through Confederation, three British North American colonies united to form a federal, semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom.
  • or similar. We could of course opt for the alternate Option B (above, with citation from the constitution), or replace 'semi-autonomous entity' above with the actual word (as in the current/locked and concise version), but then we'd be back to where we started.
  • In summary, Option A simply won't do: it's too short, glazes over and/or hoodwinks the issue and spoonfeeds users with simplistic language and a limited perspective regarding Confederation. However, Option B is in the least a succinct and conciliatory proposal to equitably describe the events and by-products of Confederation, covering all the major points, and does so in an appropriate context per policy.
  • Furthermore, as evidenced on Talk:Canada's name [18], it is necessary to point out your polemicism and deprecation of notions surrounding 'dominion' and its propriety without providing even a single source despite many requests, while crapping on legitimate sources. Your opposition elsewhere and here (to even link to the concept, for Christ's sake) to me demonstrates an intractable bias regarding the topic; thus, I believe your assessments should be dealt with as such. Quizimodo (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Quizimodo. Thank you very much for fielding the "comments" of JimWae. Your responses to him are thoughtful, civil, and forthright. I thank you for that. I will admit that personally I have great difficulty in talking to JimWae. I frequently get frustrated with him, and unfortunately can slip into ad homenims.

I feel that the phrase,

"Canada was founded on July 1, 1867 as a federal Dominion".

(with Dominion as a capitol D) is a the best comprimise to placate BOTH sides in this "discussion". I earnestly hope that it will get inserted into the Canada article.

Take care, and thanks a million eh ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So, saying that an editor is "crapping on legitimate sources" is what passes for civility and thoughtfulness now? Interesting. In any case, the proposals have been discussed, refined, rediscussed, and re-refined. Instead of debating them again and again, I would respectfully ask that those editors who have already expressed their opinion in favour of one or the other options now refrain from arguing with those who disagree. Quizimodo, you have made your opposition to option A plain. Is it really necessary to restate it to every editor who expresses a preference for it? - Eron^Talk 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A spade is a spade: the above is self-evident -- if it soothes your ears, replace "crapping" with "challenging". But I make no apologies. And, yes, reiteration is apparently necessary: you have also repeatedly stated your position. Wikipedia is not y/our mother: must you wince upon reasoned and repeated opposition? Quizimodo (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wincing at anything. I'm not taking anything personally. I'm not sure why you insist on implying that I am. As to the use of language, replacing "crapping" with "challenging" would at least be civil. I am not much persuaded by the argument that rudeness is to be excused because it is somehow more honest than being polite. - Eron^Talk 18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. No one is arguing that rudeness should be tolerated (including yours), per policy; if you interpret comments as such, that is not my problem. Quizimodo (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Howabout you guys have a Poll on who prefers Option A and who prefers Option B, since those are the finalist. Get an idea on which is preffered over the other. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That was sort of the point of this whole section. I posted the two options and asked for opinions. As to my restating of my position, I have deliberately not done so in this section because, as I said when I started it, "I'd like to hear some opinions from those who haven't already expressed them at length as I don't think any of us have perspective on this any more." - Eron^Talk 18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just make the Poll straigt forwad - Ask editors who support A to place their moniker under it (with no elaborations), Ask editors who support B to place their moniker under it (with no elaborations) --. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that, like on the United States of America page, we simply note that the founding of the nation was marked from July 1, 1867. After all, if we want to get nit-picky about when a country was "truly" independent, then America's independence from Britain should be dated from the 1783 Treaty of Paris, not the 1776 Declaration.

As described in the body here as there should simply be noted the gradual evolution from nominal independence to full-fledged independence. After all, few here would quibble over America's dating from 1776 de facto over 1783 de jure, and neither should we here. Agreed, 1 July 1867 meant independence but not completely, and that 1982 meant complete cutting of ties but, as with America, there was a point were de facto independence was reached - and that would arguably be after World War One, the Treaty of Westminster simply making de jure what had already been de facto for a good decade or so in Canada's case.

I mean, clearly, Britain was not going to use its theoretical powers over Canada after 1931 despite the fact our constitution was an act of British parliament. The way the intro is in "A" and "B" rather glosses over the reality on the ground and makes it sound that Canada was stuck to the UK umbilical cord until 1982, or 1931. This is an overly legalistic and in my view pedantic point while worthy of discussion within the body of the article hardly merits its position within the lede. While the legal argument can be made for sure, our de facto independence, like America's, actually came well before that, arguably dating from the end of WWI. Canada Jack (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the Treaty Paris made the US independent. Britain did not grant independence, it recognized the independence established in the Declaration of Independence. If anything, the Declaration of Independence (or more precisely the vote for independence) was the de jure point where the US became independent and either the Battle of Yorktown or the Treaty of Paris was the de facto point. Achieving both milestones (de facto and de jure) were important for both countries, but I think the analogy to America is inapt. -Rrius (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Next step?

• I have 2 suggestions on how to resolve this seeming deadlock. One is we take a vote & majority rules. The other is that - and I know this sounds strange, but it could end in some greater consensus developing - that we alternate between the 2 options every 2 weeks, and that during those 2 weeks both "camps" work to improve both versions. Regardless of which suggestion is preferred, in the meantime, because the existing text does NOT have nearly the approval of the other two, I could accept Option B -- but NOT with became (because the Canada before 1867-07-01 was not the same as the one that started on that date, and suggesting o/w is to minimize the role of the Atlantic provinces in Confederation) There was another, better wording suggested.

  B2 "In 1867 through Confederation, three British North American colonies united to form a federal, semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom...."

• I will leave my reply to the last entries directed my way for another time, since I want to maintain a good disposition. No evidence has been presented yet that "dominion" status, as it was understood in 1867, conferred any additional autonomy over colonial status. The Dominion of New England was an example of even-tighter control over a "domain" than previously over the previously separate colonies. And yes, I do recognize that the wording in Option B2 does NOT directly say there was any increase in autonomy in 1867 (tho the original B DOES strongly suggest that - all the more reason for B2) -- --JimWae (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC) --JimWae (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this should go to a vote. While many people feel heavily invested and believe there are significant issues in play, the options are very similar and will have nearly identical effects on readers. Readers who care about the formation and independence of Canada will read the relevant parts of the article and the follow the links; Those who don't won't. I believe supporters of various positions have given a lot of ground to arrive at these two suggestions. I'm not sure that anyone is in the mood to give more, so a vote might be the only way to reach a conclusion. The only other option I can see is mixing and matching: i.e., use the first sentence of Option A with the second of Option B, or vice versa. -Rrius (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• • An aside: this 'edit' at 'Dominion' seems pretty self-explanatory about said intentions. Quizimodo (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is still Option A. B2 was agreed upon above by the author of B. If B is still on the table, then so is A. B2 is a temporary solution to keep the peace until a vote is taken. I could live with B2, I cannot abide B. I would think those who cannot abide A would find B2 something they could live with too - --JimWae (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC).

• • The edit is fine; however, I point out that two sources invoked indicate that 'Canada' became that semi-autonomous entity in 1867. I can live with any of options B (some more than others); option A will not do. Quizimodo (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Of the 3 refs, I find only one uses "became". I also find one erroneously states 4 colonies were united. I am sure there are plenty of other refs that use misleading & errroneous language too - we do not need to emulate that. Btw, I find nothing wrong with "formed as" and, for me, "formed into" not only adds to the denseness of the entire paragraph, it too suggestively avoids recognition that 2 of the 3 colonies were not previosuly called Canada. --JimWae (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Both the NODE and the Canadian Oxford Dictionary indicate that "Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867"; the CIA Factbook indicates "Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867 while retaining ties to the British crown." Interestingly, this website from Canadian Heritage posits:
    • "In 1867, Canada became the first colony to be transformed into a self-governing “Dominion;” a status which came to imply equality with Britain...."
  • and this website (its authority of which I'm uncertain of) indicates:
    • "With the passing of the British North America Act in 1867, Canada became a Dominion in the British Commonwealth and John A. Macdonald became Canada's first prime minister. This did not mean that it was a fully independent country, though. It remained a colony of Britain for many more years."
  • So, it's debatable whether they and other similar volumes are actually in error (not publicly accessible) and this seems to be merely a difference of opinion. Also, I'm unsure if you're objecting to "formed into" as opposed to "formed as", but the crux of my recent edit was that the prior sentence didn't name the federal entity which resulted upon Confederation, which is odd. So, the current version may be a modus vivendi regarding this. :) Quizimodo (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• I see that just in the reverse. If a spoon is formed into "an eating utensil", we know what it WAS. If a spoon is formed as "an eating utensil", we know it is now a spoon. I will try to think of an even better analogy --JimWae (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there seems to be issue with what it was as counterposed to what it became in 1867, not necessarily what it now is. Quizimodo (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have trouble seeing how I have not yet made myself clear. If a spoon (Canada) is formed into "an eating utensil", we know what it WAS (a spoon (Canada)). If a spoon (Canada) is formed as "an eating utensil", we know what to call it just after the formation ( a spoon (Canada)).--JimWae (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You are being excessively polemic; I maintain that Canada was formed into a federal entity upon Confederation. Also note that one definition of "became" is "to come into existence; to come to be", so this rewording and line of argumentation really seems for not what. Change it to "as", if you must. Quizimodo (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Canadian accent"

It looks like someone added a section on a Canadian accent:

Native Canadian's have a accent distinct from those in the neighboring US. While not very different, certain pronunciations are accented differently, such as words containing "ou" (about, house, etc). Also the word process & words similar (project, programme) are pronounced with a distinct "pro-cess" vs. the American "prawcess". This accent is influenced by both their proximity to the US and their English ancestry. Accents in the Upper Great Lakes of the US (Minnesota & Michigan in particular) have similar accent to their Canadian neighbors.

This entire section should be deleted.

Canadian speech patterns are discussed in a well-researched fashion in the article "Canadian English" and its associated articles on specific regional versions and related accents. The blanket statements in this addition are unrefererenceable. "This accent is influenced by both their proximity to the US and their English ancestry." - Note that only 20% of Canadians explicitly claimed English ancestry in the 2001 census. This phrase also appears to contrast the influence of American English with the influence of "English ancestry", suggesting that such ancestry is absent from speakers of American English.

This addition concludes by equating the "Canadian accent" with that found in Minnesota and Michigan. The corresponding speech phenomena are explained in a more comprehensive way in other articles, but suffice it to say that this is a vast overgeneralization.

The topic of a Canadian accent, or of the different accents found in Canada, is considerably more complex than this addition would lead a reader to believe. The existing Language section on the Canada article already references more specific articles on both of Canada's languages.

This is not even taking into account the political incorrectness of making a commentary on a "Canadian accent" and acknowledging only one of the two official languages.

Delete!!!

Rycalder (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur; the section is completely unsubstantiated POV, and spells "neighbor" in the American fashion. --G2bambino (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur aswell, eh. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about accents should be in here as accents are regional and have nothing to do with which side of the border you live on. For example, a person from Michigan would sound much more like someone from Ontario than they would a person from Arkansas, New York, or Texas. Same for BC/WA and all of the border states. So you can't really say that there is a Canadian "accent" per se as compared to american really, because we all have regional accents./Doug Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.251.239.3 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of reliable sources that say you are incorrect about that but I agree that it belongs at the Canadian English article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Order of intro paragraphs

I'd like to switch the order of the second and third paragraphs in the introduction. In my opinion, the paragraph describing Canada as industrialized, democratic, bilingual, et alii is more important for a quick definition of the country than is the history. I proposed this a while back and it seemed to have consensus to move, but people said we should see how that other big intro debate turned out first. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. People generally want to know something about the present-day country before going into its history --JimWae (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good edit. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree -- compare with Australia. It seems only logical to briefly describe the country's history before summarising its current status. As well, previously or currently, I see no such consensus as yet for such a swap. Quizimodo (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, milk comes in bags. -- Anonymous 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.192.223 (talk)

Examples of both sorts of arrangement may be found among the WP articles on the countries of the world, so pointing to the article on Australia, as a model to follow, has little worth as an arguement -- and likewise for the article on any one other country. A consistent pattern among such articles (such as the one for having an opening paragraph giving the country's general location and its bounds) would be more persuasive, but even that would not oblige the "Canada" article to conform. The editorship of this article has an independent decision. Both arrangements have some merit. The current characteristics are probably of greater interest to most readers, and on that basis should go before the historical outline. On the other hand, putting the historical outline before the current characteristics makes chronological and causal sense. On the balance, though, I think that putting the current characteristics ahead of the historical outline is better.
This comes down to editorial judgement and, whereas the article cannot be written in both ways at once, I suppose that the majority opinion among its editorship should decide the matter.
Direction to the earlier discussion on this, mentioned by Arctic.gnome, would be useful. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

True. I invoke comparison with 'Australia' because it is also a featured article; this one became that with the current structure in the lead, and has remained that way for some time. I feel the chronological and causal elements outweigh those of currency, at least in this instance: as it is now, the 2nd paragraph 'builds up' to the current state of affairs in the 3rd paragraph (in a manner of speaking), whereas a switch would seem to me awkward. So, while I can be convinced otherwise, I'm unsure arguments to this point justify a mere swap without making any edits of content or without more support or discussion. Quizimodo (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was saving discussion of the history paragraph until the "dominion" sentence issue was solved but, as it's been opened, I will state my preference that this paragraph be reduced considerably. In fact, I'd like to see it reduced to a critical sentence or two describing when the present state of Canada was created and added to the other paragraph. After that issue is solved, I'd like to see the History section of the article reduced considerably as well. This is meant to be an overview article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the need to prune this lead paragraph, as it remains succinct and is somewhat clearer and more informative than its predecessor: also, in effect, it was arrived at through lengthy discourse.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that the history section (and others) is in need of some severe pruning -- this is also a long-standing issue. Perhaps that should be tackled first, since at least the introduction is in a state of relative normalcy? Quizimodo (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am "out of the loop" as I've not been following recent discussion on the talk page but I would hardly think that the following is succinct and clear:

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, semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom. This began an accretion of additional provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and culminating in the Canada Act in 1982 which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament.

DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I like Gazzster's suggestion above: The present state of Canada was founded in 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you find unclear? Propose alternate syntax, then. But merely iterating opposition to the current introduction does not make it so. In fact, I believe current discussion about minimising historical elements in the lead is precisely because a conciliation is grudgingly in place regarding other notions recently discussed (viz. that of 'dominion'), something which some are either unwilling or unable to accept. So ... Quizimodo (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have: The present state of Canada was founded in 1867.

It's not clear to me from the discussions above that a consensus is in place but I will leave that for now.

I do wish to edit the history part of the introduction because it's entirely too long and weighted for an introduction to the topic of Canada. There are some 10 or 11 sections in the article and it seems unnecessary to have a third of the intro be history. The intro should say when the country was founded and leave the overview to the history section below. Would you object strongly to:

• Canada was formed in 1867 with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation. or:
• In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal, semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom. (though I don't approve equating dominion to semi-autonomous entity, I believe that is the current consensus)

DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, you have not been clear, but that's another story.

Let me rephrase: it makes more sense (to me) to work with the available syntax first before advocating for a wholesale reduction of content in the introduction, much of which is a melange of long-standing (and therefore consensual) content with innovations per recent discussions (e.g., growth and expansion). However, perhaps we should nix mention of the Statute of Westminster, which would be one step to reducing the paragraph's length. We can probably economise elsewhere too.

That being said: I object to an unnecessary whittling down of the 2nd paragraph in totum: unfortunately, perhaps because of the excessive length of the history section, no such summary exists in this article, and these are not unimportant aspects of the current state known as Canada that are also deserving in the introduction. Moreover, this serves as more than just a historical summary because it also touches on and summarises Canada's political, governmental, and linguistic underpinnings ... just as the 3rd paragraph does.

Also, if a consensus is not in place regarding the above re-phrasing (which I doubt), there is definitely not a consensus for your proposal, which is predicated on even less discussion and would seem to chuck the history details which have prevailed for quite some time. If I had to choose, though, the second of your options is passable, perhaps substituting in 'semi-autonomous entity' with 'dominion' for clarity (but either would pique more curiosity as to what it all means, and we'd be back to where we started); the first option is definitely not passable due to its oversimplification and, again, would be wanton for elaboration. Quizimodo (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've not made myself clear. I'm trying my best. To clarify some misunderstandings I observe:

• I am proposing this admittedly rather extreme change to the article. I will not do it myself. I am looking for input from others. I did say that I had been holding this proposal back until the other issue was cleared but since I noticed a change back and forth on the order of current state and background history, I decided it would be a good time to chime in.
• I am actually proposing three substitutes for the history paragraph, in decreasing order of my preference:

1. The present state of Canada was founded in 1867.
2. Canada was formed in 1867 with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation.
3. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal, semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom.

I believe I do understand your position to be that you believe a overview of the history of Canada is desirable in the introduction and that you think it necessary to say that Canada was not fully independent when founded. I will wait to see if any others editors are interested to discuss the issue. Regards, DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless of when Canada became a state and what the wording of the two paragraphs should be, I think the two need to be switched. Most people reading an overview about Canada would more likely want to know a general definition of the modern state (that it is bilingual, industrialized, etc.) than they would want to know the history. Do you have a good reason to keep the history first? As for the justification that Australia does it this way, I think that its article should also be switched; and that if any country were to take its cue from another, they could just as easily be taking theirs from us. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree. One other point on this history para: the phrasing of the (often contentious) sentence "...Canada was formed into a federal, semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom." I think it would read better and make more sense if this 'of the United Kingdom' was dropped - it is redundant given that the "British North American colonies" precedes this in the same sentence.--Gregalton (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on the British/UK thing, it sounds redundant. On the paragraph order, I'll switch them in a couple days if no one comes up with a solid reason for putting history first other than "because Australia did it". If there are some people who strongly feel that history should be first, we'll do a poll on it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

GA, it may seem redundant, but considering that the UK would not otherwise be named until the next sentence, having it read that Canada became a 'semi-autonomous entity' alone may be unclear (of what, British North America, Britain, the UK?) and I believe it should be retained. If anything, perhaps the 2nd notation should be eliminated instead?

A.g, must you be offensive and fixate on minutiae, or do you not grasp the concept of using examples in argumentation? From the onset, I explained why the current order should be retained -- the history paragraph sets up the latter one about Canada's modernity -- and despite what 'Australia' and other articles seem to do. Quizimodo (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If I came off as offencive, it was due to poor communication and was not my intent. I do not think that the history paragraph is necessary context for the modern paragraph — in fact, the history paragraph may contain much information that many Canadians themselves do not know — one could learn about Canada's place in the world without knowing anything about the Seven Years War. I'm basing my opinion on what I think people would most likely want to know in a quick general overview, so I think we should start with defining Canada as a country (the geography paragraph), then say what kind of country it is (the multicultural-democratic-industrialized paragraph), and finally give an overview of how Canada arrived at this point (the history paragraph). This issue may be one of those situations where both sides are right, so it might be best if we just set up a straw poll to see where everyone stands. I'll do that when I get back to a computer in a couple days if no one beats me to it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Note that I'm not wholly resistant to swapping the order, but the current long-standing order makes sense to me. To flip the logic on its head, Canada's current place in the world would be moot without the Seven Years War and important events (and others) noted in the 'history' paragraph, and I think its current placement properly and succinctly sets up the current state of affairs. In effect, the introduction should hark of the article in microcosm -- in this respect, the history section essentially precedes all others (aside from etymology of Canada) and sets up the remaining content thusly.

A poll, in addition to being e-vil, might be hasty: admittedly, I do appear to be in the minority regarding this. So, let's wait a few days, and see if anyone else weighs in on either side. After that, do the swap unless there's a groundswell the other way, OK? Quizimodo (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Making the intro match the order of the article is a very good point, and in many cases it should be like that. I guess I'm thinking of the (many) people who will only read the intro of an article and then skim to the part that they want. For people doing a quick pass for information about the topic, I think the bilingual/industrialized paragraph is the most useful and should be early. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think British North America colony is quite clear - it refers to the UK. I also think that since the UK is mentioned in the next sentence, any reader who conceivably did not get the equivalence would find clarity shortly thereafter. Finally, I'm not convinced the formulation "semi-autonomous entity of" another entity is entirely correct language-wise, but will remain open-minded on that (perhaps it just sounds strange to me). Anyway, the redundancy is clear and the UK in the next sentence can be expanded to United Kingdom.--Gregalton (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

While not wholly convinced, I will relent for now regarding this point. As for its correctness, 'polity' (in place of 'entity') was my first choice, but is esoteric, and use of "of" is wholly appropriate given the context of possession: a clearer alternate, of course, would have been 'federal dominion of the UK' or similar. However, if it so happens that this is used as a springboard to change that entire sentence and to remove notation of Canada being a 'semi-autonomous entity' from the lead and to therefore fly in the face of at least what has been a tenuous concordance to date regarding that (see option B discussed above), I will boldly change it back. Quizimodo (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No attempt to springboard, just the redundancy issue. I've no issue with polity. And - tangentially only - "dominion of the UK"?; doesn't the concept relate to the crown, not the mothership?--Gregalton (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem.

Tangentially, yes: the concept does relate specifically to the British crown, per the constitution, but that would insinuate even more verbosity and complexity into what is already a dense and complex notion. :) This is already implicit in the notion of Canada becoming a 'Dominion' in 1867, which was coined partially in tribute to the monarchical principle.[19] Other references may simplify it by indicating 'dominion of the UK'[20][21], not necessarily 'dominion of the British crown' (which I don't challenge, but others may not be able to tolerate such language). Quizimodo (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)