Talk:Canada/Officialname1

Untitled

The debate continues at Talk:Canada's_name

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

The Dominion of Canada is Canada's Offical Name

here

Dominion Day

Origin and special observance

Proclamation requiring celebration of July 1st:

On June 20, 1868 a proclamation issued by the Governor General, Lord Monck, enjoined and called upon all Her Majesty's loving subjects throughout Canada to join in the celebration of the Anniversary of the formation of the Dominion of Canada on the 1st of July, 1868. This proclamation, a copy of which is attached, was published in the Canada Gazette on Saturday, June 20, 1868.

Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Act,

1927-Incorporation of the National Committee:

On February 18, 1927, Royal Assent was given to an act to incorporate a National Committee for the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation - 17 George V, Chap. 6. This Act is entitled the Diamond Jubilee of Confederation Act, 1927. The Committee, called the Corporation comprised about seventy persons including the Governor General and his wife, the lieutenant governors of the provinces, the Prime Minister of Canada and seven members of the Cabinet (but not the Secretary of State), the Chief Justice, several privy councillors including the former prime minister, the speakers of both Houses, the Leader of the Opposition, the premiers of all the provinces, several senators and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Under Secretary of State, the Dominion Archivist, the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs and the heads of a number of organizations such as the National Council of Women, the Trades and Labour Congress, the United Farmers of Alberta, I.O.D.E., Bar Association, the National Battlefields Commission, the Canadian Legion, etc.

The objects of the Corporation were to make and carry out necessary arrangements in cooperation with the provinces and other bodies for an effective celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the formation of the Dominion of Canada, and to administer and distribute a grant of $250,000. The affairs of the corporation were administered by an executive committee; the Secretary of State of Canada convened the first meeting of this committee.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Don, that is not proof. We all know that the Government of Canada commonly used "Dominion of Canada" in official documents during that era. That was how Canada was 'styled'. That does not mean that "DoC" was the official name. Now it is styled "Canada", which is also the official name. The Constitution says: "One Dominion under the name Canada", not "one Dominion under the name 'Dominion of Canada'".

So if the argument is that common usage of "Dominion of Canada" by the Government of Canada made that the official name, then the same argument would be true today: the Government of canada uses only "Canada" to describe the country, and therefore that is its "official" name. Ground Zero | t 21:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The BNA Act sez:

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

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

Notice how the phrase "Dominion of Canada"does not appear in the sections dealing with the name of the country? Ground Zero | t 21:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Ground Zero,

Ok, I'll take that arguement, and run with it. I've got a bunch of old books here, I'll see what I can come up with in terms of more supporting evidence for the full formal name of the Dominion of Canada.

BTW, can you tell me why the Commonwealth of Australia name is not challenged here at Wikipedia?

Take care, and best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Don, Australia's Constitution consists of a number of documents. The most important of these is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The text of the Constitution was originally a schedule to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (in full, An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So I think it's pretty clear from their constitution that that's what the name is. There is no analogue for "Dominion of Canada" in our constitution, the British North America Act, or Canada Act. I don't think that old books will help your case when the constitution says that the name of the country s "Canada". In a dispute between old books and the basic law that governs Canada, I'll go with the constitution. Find something in the constitution that says that the name is not "Canada", and we'll have something to discuss. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Ground Zero,

The Constitution of Australia specifically mentions the word "Commonwealth" because Australia chose to be a Dominion, but it Governmental Structure was a hyrbrid of British and American terms.

For example,

Canada has Provinces, the House of Commons,

Australia has States, the House of Representatives,

but they both have a Governor-General, and the Queen as Figure-Head of State. All Australia wanted to do was to indicate they were still apart of the British Commonwealth, but they were incorporating some of the American Government structures.

Are you saying that no arguement save a citation in the British North America Act 1867 will satisfy you? That sounds a bit extreme, don't you think? ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The British North America Act 1867 (Original Text)

GroundZero wrote,

There is no analogue for "Dominion of Canada" in our constitution, the British North America Act, or Canada Act. I don't think that old books will help your case when the constitution says that the name of the country s "Canada". In a dispute between old books and the basic law that governs Canada, I'll go with the constitution. Find something in the constitution that says that the name is not "Canada", and we'll have something to discuss. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The British North America Act 1867

• Note this is a 1945 Version taken from,

M. Olliver, Problems in Canadian Sovereignty, Canada Book Co. Ltd., Toronto, Canada, p.491, (1945).

I own this book, and it is sitting in front of me right now (amoungst other history books I shall cite).

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~sprague/bna.htm

Ground Zero wrote,

So if the argument is that common usage of "Dominion of Canada" by the Government of Canada made that the official name, then the same argument would be true today: the Government of canada uses only "Canada" to describe the country, and therefore that is its "official" name. Ground Zero | t 21:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The BNA Act sez:

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

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

Notice how the phrase "Dominion of Canada"does not appear in the sections dealing with the name of the country? Ground Zero | t 21:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Footnote #(4), and Footnote #(5)

The Dominion of Canada: Constitutional Dates

Timeline

(1). 1867 The Dominion of Canada gets the British North America Act 1867 as its constitution,

(2). 1927 The Balfour Declaration,

(3). 1931 The Statute of Westminister,

(4). 1982 The Canada Act .

The British North America Act 1867 established the Dominion of Canada as an independent Nation-State. Its independence was peacefully granted by the UK, in stark contrast to the United States of America that won its independence from the UK via victory on the battlefield by winning the War of Independence (1775-1783).

The Dominion of Canada chose to have the British Constitutional-Monarch as its Figure-Head of State, and to remain a member of the British Empire (not yet the British Commonwealth). this process of peacefully granting independence to mature British Colonies came about after learning from the mistakes the British Government made in handling the grievances of the 13 Colonies (of the 19 Colonies) that rebelled and broke away.

In 1867, the Dominion of Canada could pass its own laws, and send them to the Governor-General who would grant them Royal Ascent subject to being sent to the British Parliament for (i) review, and (ii) final approval.

Now, the British Parliament could review (and alter) Legislation passed by the Canadian Parliament, and then finally approve it. The operative word it could. They actually did not do this very often (if you actually check).

In the Statute of Westminister 1931, the British Parliament could no longer review (and alter) any Legislation pass by the local Parliaments of the Dominions. In other words, function (i) the reviewing and changing of local laws was revoked from British Parliament.

However, function (ii), the final passing of Legislation was retained by British Parliament. With regards to the Dominion of Canada, this finally approval by British Parliament remained on the books until 1982. In 1982, the Canada Act (1982) finally removed the neccessity of the sending and rubber stamping of Canadian Legislation to the British Parliament. ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask what point you are making here? Are you proposing an edit to the article? HistoryBA 23:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero: The Offical Full Names Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

Howdy Ground Zero,

So in your opinion that the Offical Full Names Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are,

Canada, (1867),

Commonwealth of Australia (1901),

New Zealand (1907)

In other word the Commonwealth of in front of Australia is offcial, but the "Dominion of" in front of Canada and New Zealand is not.

What was "New Zealand" called before 1907 then eh? ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I think when the founding fathers wrote the BNA act they didn't really think it would be so controversial years later over the country's name. I have a proposal to make to end the controversy. Why don't we add this to the article like other websites have done for the country?

Formal Name: Dominion of Canada Local Name: Canada

Matthew Samuel Spurrell 30 August 2005 7:12 (UTC)

Yes. That is exactly what I am arguing for.

Formal Name: Dominion of Canada, Local Name: Canada

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No, there is still no evidence that "Dominion of Canada" is the formal name of the country. I do not think that for the sake of compromise that we should include something for which there is no constitutional or legal evidence. The only evidence that has been presented is that is used to be commonly used. If Matthew or Don or someone else can provide a citation from the Constitution or an Act of Parliament that the formal name is defined to be the "Dominion of Canada", then we can go with it. But so far, all we have is that it was used. that makes it a 'style', not a formal or official or legal name. Ground Zero | t 13:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Please define the term styled as, and its legal meaning(s). ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion has been going on for a long time on Wiki and is really wasting space and both sides seem to make very valid points on the issue so I think the best way to settle this is to put it to a vote of some kind then be done with it. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 31 August 2005 2:51 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Matthew, I don't agree, The Constitution says the name is "Canada". If someone provides legal or constitutional evidence to the contrary, then we have something to vote on. But right now, all we have for "Dominion of Canada" is conjecture and wishful thinking. I hardly see how it makes sense to have a vote between evidence and conjectue. Ground Zero | t 21:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you look at and yes Don is providing good examples and points that say otherwise. No one has provided enough evidence or anything to suggest that the country is not called the Dominion of Canada other than making his or her own interpretation of what the constitution means. That’s why I am suggesting a vote if you don't seem to agree with the name Dominion of Canada then you can vote against it. If some people agree then can vote for it and then the matter will be over and done with. A vote will settle this once and for all then no one can worry about this anymore if you leave it be then more people will just come and the debate will keep going on. Everyone seems to have his or her own opinion and there is no clear choice to me so if everyone agrees with the final outcome before hand then it will be settled this is the only logical step to solve this ongoing issue unless you want to keep debating this endlessly. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 31 August 2005 2:51 (UTC)

I would welcome input from other editors, such as the comment from User:Zhatt, below, who concludes that "Canada" is the correct name. But for something as important as this, we should have the right answer here, not the popular answer. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Don has provided numerous example fo "Dominion of Canada" being used, and no legal or constitutional reference that says "the name of the country is the Dominion of Canada". I've provided the sections of the consitution that are pretty clear:

One Dominion under the Name of Canada and Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

There isn't much to interpret there. I have also noted that the phrase "Dominion of Canada" does not appear in the BNA Act anywhere. This really comes down to what some people want to believe in absence of evidence in the constitution or statute to support their wishful thinking. Ground Zero | t 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Don

Firstly, Don, when you add in a whole bunch of extra spaces, it makes it more difficult for most people to follow the arguments. More importantly, it makes things much more difficult for visually-impaired people who are using screen readers and speech synthesizers to read Wikipedia, like my buddy Graham (see recent comments on his talk page), so it would make things easier if you would not spread your comments out so much. I've taken the liberty of compressing your comments down like everyody else's.

I don't think it is harsh to say that the Constitution of Canada is more authoritative than books. It is clear in saying that the name of the country is Canada. None of the references you have cited have said "the legal and official name of the country is the 'Dominion of Canada', despite what it says in the BNA Act".

BNA Act 1867 (ORIGINAL TEXT)

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~sprague/bna.htm#footnote5

Footnote(5) Partially repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.). As originally enacted the section read as follows:

Clause 4. The subsequent Provisions of this Act, shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the Day appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen's Proclamation; and in the same Provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act. (This italised part is what is left written today).

The interpretations is clear. "Canada" refers to the new Federal Union of the four Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Its means that "Canada" no longer refers to the former United Province of Canada (1840-1867), which Ontario, and Quebec were re-created out of in 1867, and where previously known as Upper Canada (1791-1840), and Lower Canada (1791-1840).

Ground Zero, why are you taking this clause so literally, and do have anything against the name the Dominion of Canada eh?

Sincerely,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite fond of tings that are old. I have a big, beautiful linen Candian Red Ensign that I fly on what I like to call Dominion Day. I love the Maple Leaf Forever. But, we are writing an encyclopedia here, and it must reflect what is, not what we like or what we want to be. My point remains that I have seen no evidence that that the name has been defined legally to be anythign other thaan "Canada", and the "Dominion of Canada" was anything more than a common styling. Ground Zero | t 15:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead, they follow the common practice of the time of styling the country as the Dominion of Canada. Again, the government and writers used "the Dominion of Canada", but there is still no legal/constitutional evidence that that was the legal and official name of the country.

Please define this term styled as, and its legal meaning(s).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

From Merriam Webster (not my favourite dictionary, but it has a free on-line version):

Main Entry: 2style

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): styled; styl·ing

1 : to call or designate by an identifying term : NAME

2 a : to give a particular style to b : to design, make, or arrange in accord with the prevailing mode

So, when I say that the country wsa "styled as" the Dominion of Canada, I think it means that that was the identification that was used by the government. I do not think that it had a legal basis. The style has now changed to "Canada", which is the same as the legal name as defined in the Constitution. I hope this clarifies. Ground Zero | t 15:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have provided evidence from the Constituion that shows that the legal and official name is "Canada". Why would the way an author choses to refer to the country be more authoritative than the Constitution? I'm sorry, I just don't get that. I think, and I will verify this tomorrow, that the BNA Act does not even use the term "Dominion of Canada". I am not sure how that could be official if it is never used in the Onstitution, unless there were an Act of Parliament at some point to make it so.

Its called the British North America Act 1867 because not all of British North America wanted to join in 1867. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, the Hudson Bay Land, and New Caledonia (later British Columbia) did not opt to join. The preamble of the BNA Act says explicitly that this Constitution is an open invitation for other territories of British North America to join the Dominion. Please read the PREAMBLE and FOOTNOTES.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the official names are "Canada" and "the Commonwealth of Australia". I don't know about NZ.

Why specifically use the Commonwealth of Australia, ans exclude "the Dominion of" part for Canada?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I reviewed the New Zealand article, and it makes no mention of "dominion". There were no further articles that could provide more info. NZ does not seem to have a constitution, but there is a Constitution Act that stands in place of it. No article has been written on that yet. I will try to do more research tomorrow to find out what that Act says out of interest, although I don't really tihnk that what the official names of NZ and Australia are really matter to the discussion. After all, they are quite different from each other and from Canada in form and structure. Best regards, Ground Zero | t 01:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Howdy, Ground Zero,

To recap, so in your opinion that the Official Full Names Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are,

Canada, (1867),

Commonwealth of Australia (1901),

New Zealand (1907)

In other words, the Commonwealth of in front of Australia is offcial, but the "Dominion of" in front of Canada and New Zealand is not.

Prior to New Zealand becoming a Dominion in 1907, New Zealand was clearly a Colony. In 1852, the British Parliament passed the The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852. This meant that New Zealand had received Responsible Government, just like the Colony of the United Province of Canada got in 1840 (look up Lord Durham's Report).

Now, the three Dominions of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were created by British Parliament in 1867, 1901, and 1907, respectively. You correctly cite that the offical name of Australia is the Commonwealth of Australia.

So how can the other two just have offical full names of just Canada, and just New Zealand?

This would not be consistent with the wording of the day, would it not?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Don, please re-read my comments re: New Zealand. Your "re-cap" is not a correct representation of what I said, so I don't think you have read carefully enough. I was quite clear.

As far as Canada not having the same form of official name as Australia, why not? We are two separate countries at opposite ends of the globe formed 34 years apart with different populations, traditions, and cultures. As you pointed out, Aus. has a House of Representatives, an elected, equal, American-style Senate, and states, unlike Canada. So that makes them very different. And, in the end, I really don't care about other countries. The question is, what is the name of Canada? I do't expect to find that in the constitution of another country, but in the Constitution of Canada.

I think what it comes down to is on one side, we have clear wording from our Constitution that says that the name of the country is "Canada". And on the other, there is conjecture about other countries and how we logically would have a name in the same form as they do, and citations of common usage. There is still no constitutional or legislative reference saying that the name is something other than what the Constitution says it is. I have hard evidence from the Constitution of Canada, and am asking you for the same to support your argument. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand: I mention this only for information, and not because I think that it has anything to do with Canada, but the NZ Constitution Act, 1986 makes no mention of "dominion". It does not define the name of the country (see here), but I could not find "Dominion of New Zealand" anywhere, and you'd expect that an act that is a key part of the NZ consitution would use the official name even if the style had changed to something else. Ground Zero | t 15:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as the Canadian constitution goes, (see here), it does not use the word "dominion" in any of the 143 sections that follow the last use of the word in Section 3. In fact, the term "Union" is used more frequently. And, as mentioned, if you search on "Dominion of Canada", you get 0 results. So, is there any legal or constitutional evidence for the contention that the name is something other than what the constitution says, or are we just dealing with wishful thinking here? I apologize for sounding like a broken record, but evidence, not conjecture or wishful thinking, is what this discussion really comes down to. Regards, as always, Ground Zero | t 16:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply to GroundZero: The Dominion of Canada is the formal name according to the 1921 Coat-of-Arms

Howdy GroundZero,

In 1921, the Government of Canada, received from King George V, our Offical Coat-of-Arms of the Dominion of Canada. Will you now ignore that Canada's offical name is in fact the Dominion of Canada? Well?

The Dominion of Canada is very clearly spelled out, BY THE KING! And this name (the Dominion of Canada) is no mistake. Or do you contend that it is GroundZero?

Take care, and best wishes,

Don

"By the King - A Proclamation Declaring His Majesty's Pleasure concerning the Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada

George R.I.

"WHEREAS We have received a request from the Governor General in Council of Our Dominion of Canada that the Arms or Ensigns Armorial herein after described should be assigned to Our said Dominion."

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

The Royal Coat of Arms of Canada (formally known as The Arms of Her Majesty in Right of Canada) was proclaimed by King George V on November 21, 1921, as the Arms or Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada.

Canada's coat of arms is very closely modeled after the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. The UK and Canada have perhaps the most similar coats of arms of any two nations.

When other provinces joined Confederation, the attempt to add the arms of the new provinces to this federal composite design resulted in a crowded and confused appearance. For this reason, the Canadian Government submitted a request to the Sovereign for a grant of arms. This request was approved and the arms assigned to Canada were appointed and declared in the proclamation (text on next page) of His Majesty King George V dated November 21, 1921. This action was proceeded with on the basis of an Order of the Governor General in Council (P.C. 1921-1496) dated April 30, 1921.

Proclamation of 1921

http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm1_e.cfm

"By the King - A Proclamation Declaring His Majesty's Pleasure concerning the Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada

George R.I.

WHEREAS We have received a request from the Governor General in Council of Our Dominion of Canada that the Arms or Ensigns Armorial herein after described should be assigned to Our said Dominion.

We do hereby, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, and in exercise of the powers conferred by the first Article of the Union with Ireland Act, 1800, appoint and declare that the Arms or Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada shall be Tierced in fesse the first and second divisions containing the quarterly coat following, namely, 1st Gules three lions passant guardant in pale or, 2nd, Or a lion rampant within a double tressure flory-counter-flory gules, 3rd, Azure a harp or stringed argent, 4th, Azure, three fleurs-de-lis or, and the third division Argent three maple leaves conjoined on one stem proper. And upon a Royal helmet mantled argent doubled gules the Crest, that is to say, On a wreath of the colours argent and gules a lion passant guardant or imperially crowned proper and holding in the dexter paw a maple leaf gules. And for Supporters On the dexter a lion rampant or holding a lance argent, point or, flying therefrom to the dexter the Union Flag, and on the sinister A unicorn argent armed crined and unguled or, gorged with a coronet composed of crosses-patée and fleurs-de-lis a chain affixed thereto reflexed of the last, and holding a like lance flying therefrom to the sinister a banner azure charged with three fleurs-de-lis or; the whole ensigned with the Imperial Crown proper and below the shield upon a wreath composed of roses, thistles, shamrocks and lillies a scroll azure inscribed with the motto A mari usque ad mare, and Our Will and Pleasure further is that the Arms or Ensigns Armorial aforesaid shall be used henceforth, as far as conveniently may be, on all occasions wherein the said Arms or Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada ought to be used.

Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace, this twenty-first day of November, in the year of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, and in the twelfth year of Our Reign.

GOD SAVE THE KING"

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Don, as I have explained before, adding in a whole bunch of extra spaces makes it difficult for ordinary editors to follow the discussion, but more importantly, it makes it very difficult for visually impaired users to read the pages. It is impolite. Out of consideration for other readers, especially those with visual impairments, please leave only one blank line (two hard returns) like everybody else. I have, again, removed them.

Howdy Ground Zero, thanks for removing them. I am trring to get better at that, but sometime I forget. Sorry. ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Now, to your point. Yes, the King, like most people of the day, used the phrase "the Dominion of Canada". That was the common 'style' of the time. (I have provided a dictionary definition for you above.) I guess this means that you have still not found anything, anywhere from legislation or the Constitution that says the "DoC" is the official or formal name, have you?

Besides a Constitution there are other formal documents of Sovereignty used in the British Commonwealth. One of those documents is known as the Royal Proclaimation. This proclaimation happens to explicitly grant and describe the very symbol of Canada, i.e., its Coat-of-Arms. Coats-of-Arms of Nation are legally binding and protected, more so than Flags. The Canadian Government in 1920, specifically, and explicitly contacted the UK Government regarding the granting of a new Coat-of-Arms for Canada. After going through the addition of several new Provinces to Canada, the Quarted Coat-of-Arms have gotten quite complicated. Not that complicated Coats-of-Arms violate any rules of Heraldry (they don't), they just decided it was time to simplify things. Anyways they settled on a design, the Canadian Government liked it, the UK Government liked it, the King liked it, the UK College-of-Arms in London like it, and SHAZAM! Royal Proclaimation formally granting the Coat-of-Arms of the Dominion of Canada was whipped off!

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Where do you think one would find the official name of the country? In the Constitution of 1867 that sets out the basic law of the land? Or a proclamation about the coat of arms issued 54 years later?
• Does your Royal Proclamation mean that for the first 54 years, the offical name was "Canada" as set out in s. 3 and 4 of the BNA Act, and the King changed the official name incidentally while proclaiming the coat of arms in 1921?
• Also, when Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada, and her other Realms and Territories, Queen, proclaimed the Canada Act 1982, she referred to the country as "Canada", so I guess that's pretty official, too. Unless you think Her Majesty was mistaken. I think you should write to her to inform her of her mistake, then we can clear all of this up.

The Canada Act 1982 is comparable to The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852. In 1982 Canada was (and still) is a Dominion. In 1852 New Zealand was a Colony. In 1907, Royal Letters Patent changing its name from the Colony of New Zealand to the Dominion of New Zealand, where requested by the New Zealand Colonial Government, and granted by the UK Government. After received the Letter Patent from the UK, the New Zealand Dominion Government came into existance.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • but it is just wishful thinking that "Dominion" is part of the name. The name was formally established in BNA Act 1867 and clearly is "Canada". The confusion arises simply because they capitalized the 'D' --JimWae 18:24, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

• Regards, as always, Ground Zero | t 16:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if a Royal Proclamation in 1921 superceded the 1867 constitution and made "Dominon of canada" the official name, then I guess you'd have to agree that the Royal Proclamation of 1982 that proclaimed the Canada Act 1982 into force then superceded the Royal Proclamation of 1921. Ground Zero | t 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ground Zero,

Just to let you know I am getting a bit frustrated with your blind clinging to the edited Clause (4) of the British North America Act 1867. I am willing to continue this conversation between you and I, in a cordial manner. Just one thing I would like to ask is... Are you an English-Canadian or a French-Canadian? (i.e., English is your first language, or French is your first lanaguage, respectively). Secondly, do you favour the present Constitutional-Monarchy Goverment that Canada has, or do you favour a Republican Government?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• And in 1965, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada, and her other Realms and Territories, Queen, proclaimed the "National Flag of Canada" (See [1].) No mention of "Dominion" there either when explicitly granting and describing the very much more widely- recognized and used symbol of Canada. Ground Zero | t 19:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't matter what any Royal Proclamation says- if no one uses the name "Dominion of Canada" then it is not the name of the country. A country can't have an offical name that is not used in offical circumstances. Astrotrain 18:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• • If the coat of arms said "Dominion of Canada" you might have some point here - but appearing only in the proclamation, there is no grounds to assert Dominion is part of the name instead of a "description", or perhaps a "style" or a title or a form of address (like "Doctor" is not part of my name). BNA Act 1867 very clearly says the name is "Canada". --JimWae 19:02, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Jim Wae: The legal term "Title" as it refers to Properity Rights

In English Common-Law, the word title has multiple meanings. Since we are talking about the formal offical long form name of a country, and who rules it, I would agree that Title fits the bill, perfectly.

Main Entry: ti·tle

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=title

Function: noun

Etymology: Anglo-French, inscription, legal right, from Old French, from Latin titulum inscription, chapter heading, part of the law that sanctions an action

(1a) : the means or right by which one owns or possesses property; broadly : the quality of ownership as determined by a body of facts and events.

Since the Constitutional Monarch of the UK, is the Figure-Head of State of the UK, and the Dominion of Canada, the Queen has title (the name and the ownership) of this country. Thanks for raising that point Jim Wae, you have just helped me on the way, to proving my arguement.

BTW, you say that you are a dual-citizen of the USA and Canada, where you born and raised in the USA, or was it the Dominion of Canada? ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• You are straying from the topic at hand again. Btw, that is not what I said. --JimWae 19:34, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

On the contary Jim Wae, you brought into question the use of the word title, and I clarified its usage with respect to properity rights, and ownership. You do not determine the exact content of this topic, the progress of the discussion does.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of Constitution of Canada (1867), Australia (1901), New Zealand (1907)

(i). Canada (1867)

(ii). Australia (1901)

(iii) New Zealand (1907)

http://www.constitutional.parliament.govt.nz/templates/Page.aspx?id=241

1839 The UK formally extend the Colony of New South Wales (Australia) to encompass all of New Zealand.

1841 The New South Wales Continuance Act, formally separating New South Wales, and formally proclaiming the separate Colony of New Zealand (with a constitution almost the same as New South Wales).

1846 The Constitution Act (UK) to make further provision for the Government of the New Zealand Islands, gives the Colony a second constitution.

1852 The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852. Representative government (i.e., the Responsible Government in the United Province of Canada) was established by the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (UK) in response to pressure from settlers anxious to exert some control over local affairs (a third Colonial Constitution).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing this discussion I'd have to completely agree with Ground Zero for all the reasons he has mentioned. Zhatt 16:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed text re Canada's formal name

I'm proposing the following as a section to be inserted into the article:

==Canada's formal name==

"Canada" is the formal name of the country; however, for many years the style "Dominion of Canada" was used.

The British North America Act, 1867, which created the country and formed the basis of its constitution, stated (s3): It shall be lawful for the Queen, [...] to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, [...] the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly. Although this wording is arguably ambiguous, in an age in which countries were almost invariably named formally in the style "X of [place-name]", the style "Dominion of Canada" came into use; it is also probable that this style was used to assert the new nation's status, and perhaps also with the intention of avoiding confusion with the former "Province of Canada".

The style "Dominion of Canada" continued in use to emphasise Canada's status as a dominion of the British Empire, but after the Second World War it began to fall out of use, and today the country is only ever referred to formally as "Canada".

Not only did the BNA Act talk about the new country being established as a "Dominion under the Name of Canada", but the proclamation that put the act into force [2] also uses this wording. To modern-day eyes this wording reads simply as saying that the country is to be called "Canada", but I'm not convinced that to nineteenth-century eyes the effect would be the same. Regardless, the expression "Dominion of Canada" was certainly in use for a considerable part of Canada's history (and was in sufficiently common currency for an insurance company to use it for its name), and as such deserves comment on in the article.

Since it's been mentioned, and by way of comparison, the Commonwealth of Australia Act, enacted forty years later, uses this wording: It shall be lawful for the Queen, [...] to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, [...] the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. This wording is certainly unambiguous.

Thoughts/comments? Silverhelm 21:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe most of that information is at the Canada's name article. Zhatt 22:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Zhatt, I am debating with Ground Zero here about my assertion that Canada's formal long form name is The Dominion of Canada. Frankly I find it extraordinary that Wikipedia has a whole separate page devoted to this issue. The word "Canada" came from the French Explorers/Colonists that upon making contact with the Natives mis-heard the word "Kanata". Kanata later got changed into Canada. What is being debated here is the offical formal name of the country that was founded on July 1, 1867. Was its formal name just "Canada", or "the Dominion of Canada," that is the issue before us.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand the debate as I have been following it from the start. The debate is about the "official" name of Canada itself and the possible move (rename) of the Canada article to Dominion of Canada. I don't know a lot about the issue so I'm trying to stay out of it. What I will say is that the Canada article is already very full (43 kilobytes long to be exact) and doesn't need a new section to discus the name as there already is a "whole separate page devoted to this issue". Any major information about Canada's name (whether you're talking about the origin or the use of "Dominion") should be on that article. Zhatt 22:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zhatt. The "Usage of 'Canada'" section of Canada's name already deals with this adequately. -Adjusting 22:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Zhatt, and Adjusting,

The fact that there is a "usage of Canada" article is extraordinary. There is no call for one. What needs to done, is to have a civil, rational, debate on the issue of "Canada" versus "the Dominion of Canada" as the offical formal name of the country.

Ground Zero, and I, are having one right now, and I feel that it has been frutiful and respectful on both our parts. What will have to come next is a Constitutional Debate on the BNA Act 1867, related ammendments, Royal Proclaimations, Royal Warrants, Letters Patent, and etc. It is going to get longer folkes.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Zhatt, I only stumbled across "Canada's name" after posting the above. It seems to me that that article is rightfully the place to discuss (a) the etymology of "Canada", and (b) the reasons why that word was chosen as the country's name; and that is in the main what it does. The issue of the country's formal title is a different one, however. I appreciate that it is discussed briefly in that article, and in the interests of keeping "Canada" down to a sensible size, perhaps such a discussion is best dealt with either on that article as a sort of adjunct, or as a small but separate article of its own.

So, thinking aloud here, how about:

• A brief note is added to the beginning of "Canada" on the lines of:

The country is today formally known as "Canada"; however, for many years the style "Dominion of Canada" was used. The word "Canada" is believed to originate from a Huron-Iroquoian word meaning "a settlement".

• "Canada's name" is renamed to, eg, "Origins of the name "Canada"", to concentrate that article on its main job of explaining etymology and background of the name.
• A separate "Dominion of Canada" article explains briefly the discussion regarding the country's formal name, and is linked to from my "for many years the style "Dominion of Canada" was used" text.

This seems to me to be a nice and logical way to organise the relevant material.

Cheers, Silverhelm 23:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC).

A formal declaration of Canada article as disputed content (re: Name)

Silverhelm,

I formaly dispute that suggestion. I also formally dispute that the offical name of this country is just Canada. I assert that the first sentence of the article on Canada should have The Dominion of Canada inserted as Canada's offical name. Therefore formally state that I consider the material on the Canada page as disputed content. I am going to start a Constitutional Arguement to support my position, and I shall attempt to refute Ground Zeros insistance that Canada should only be in the first sentence (i.e., that Canada is the offical formal name). ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

We eagerly await the first iota supporting your position --JimWae 00:17, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Re: JimWae User Talkpage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JimWae#Dominion

Dominion (entred on Sept. 1, 2005)

While I have just spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to get it through the exceedingly thick skulls of [to] a couple of editors that "Dominion of Canada" is not the legal or official name of the country, the sentence that you removed from Canada was not incorrect. It merely said that the country was referred to as the Dominion of Canada, which is certianly true. There are banknotes and birth certificates and proclamations and maps and the like that called it the Dominion. I think that deleting the phrase will just fan the flames of that very, very, very tedious dispute. Ground Zero | t 02:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Stand strong - the sentence implied reference was in BNA Act 1867 -- or was misleadingly ambiguous on the matter of where & when such reference was made. Do you think "and referred to in the Statute of Westminster 1931 as the 'Dominion of Canada'" belongs in the lead? --JimWae 02:42, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

To Ground Zero,

I assume you are refering to my exceedingly thick skull. As per fanning the flames, I am not going to get into an edit-war. They have proven to be fruitless. I am going to stick within the Wikipedia Code-of-Conduct. I made solemn promise, and I entend to keep it.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• That was an inappropriate remark that I made on another user's talk page. I withdraw it and apologize for it. Ground Zero | t 00:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

To JimWae,

Thanks for the "encouragement" about finding iotas, or is it iotae? I don't know. If I have to teach me-self Latin and Greek to prove my assertion that the Dominion of Canada is the full offical formal name of this country, I shall do just that. Indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Given the name "Dominion of Canada" is not used by anyone in an offical capaicty, it is not the offical name of Canada. At the UN, the name used is Canada; in NATO, the name used is Canada; the Queen was proclaimed Queen of Canada; Canada is the name on passports and other offical documents etc........ Even if the name "Dominion of Canada" was used previously, or even referred to in the constitution, it means nothing since that name is not used now. Astrotrain 15:01, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Astrotrain,

Canada was founded back on July 1, 1867, via the peacefully granting of independence from the UK. The language of that day, and the mindset would very likely read the Empire of Canada, the Kingdom of Canada, the Realm of Canada, the Union of Canada, the Dominion of Canada, or (as Ground Zero atests) just Canada. The question we are debating is what is the most likely choice. Ground Zero has interpretated the edited Clause (4) of the British North America Act 1867, as meaning that the full formal name of this country is just "Canada". I do not agree with Ground Zeros interpretation. I have my own references books (which I shall coarefully cite), and I am formulating a carefull, precise, constitutional arguement that the full formal name (that means to this day) is the Dominion of Canada.

Take care, and best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Very interesting. But you will probably violate No original research rule. Astrotrain 16:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Astrotrain,

You make a very valid point. I shall have to very carefull about that, indeed. I have broken that before.

One thing though, the Royal Proclaimation of Canada's 1921 Coat-of-Arms explicitly uses the term "the Dominion of Canada," and Heraldry is specifically designed to use the full formal names (or the short form). You see if one only uses a short form in Heraldry that can be taken to be the formal name. However, if a longer formal name is (was) used that would Constitutionally take precidence. Do you see what I am driving at eh?

Take care, and best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Countries: There terms and Feudal Ranking System

Most of UK, and European culture is based on the legacy of th Roman Empire. The Roman Empire started out as the Roman Republic. After the assisination of Julius Ceasar on March 15, 44 BC (the Ides of March), Rome became an Empire. Octavan took power as Impersonator (Imperator, Emperor), and formally lead the Roman Empire as Ceaser Augustus. Some 429 years later, in 395 AD, the Roman Empire, in an attempt to improve the administration of it incredibly large land area, was divided into two Allied Sister Empires. They were known as the Western Roman Empire, and the Eastern Roman Empire, with their Capitol Cites in Rome and Constantinople, respectively.

The Roman Empires language of Government was Latin, and its language of Science was Greek. After the Roman Empire absorbed the last remants of Alexander's Greek Empire, the Roman's had to learn Greek, if they were going to study the vast knowledge of their new Greek subjects. Thus, the classical division between the Latin-Speaking West, and the Greek-Speaking Eastern portions of the Roman Empire was born.

The Western Roman Empire (395-476) was not as populated, and not as rich as the Eastern Roman Empire (395-1453). The West fell to the Barbarians in 476 with the execution of the Last Western Roman Emporer, and the East fell to the Muslim Turks with the Fall of Constantiople in 1453. Their legacy still lives on today.

After the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Feudal System was setup. It was an attempt to maintain order without the guiding framework of the Roman Empire. It used a system of Feudal Ranks as a basis for Government organisation, and maintaince of Law and Order.

A Frankish Empire, under a (Gaul) Frank name Charles I (Magnus Charles) or Charlemagne united some of the previous territories of the Western Roman Empire. He founded Charlemagne'e Empire on was Crown by the Pope (please check) on Christmas Day in the year 800. Charlemagne's Empire consisted of France, Germany, all of Italy (except southern tip, and Sicily), and the Spanish Province of Catalonia (i.e., "the Spanish March".).

With regards to a Republic (i.e., no Royal Family) the following is pertainant.

A Republic is ruled by a First Consul (Roman term), a Chancelor, or a President.

With regards to an Absolute Monarchy, or a Constitutional-Monarchy the following is pertainant,

An Empire is ruled by an Emperor.

A Kingdom is ruled by a King.

A Principality is ruled by a Prince.

A Duchy is ruled by a Duke.

A March is ruled by a Marquis.

An Earldom is ruled by an Earl.

A County is ruled by a Count (or Viscount),

An Estate is ruled by a Baron.

A non-specific "catch-all term" for a piece of land is a fief. When that piece of land is granted by a Sovereign (of Higher Feudal Rank) to a Vassal (of Lower Feudal Rank) The Fief is designated a Fiefdom. ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A Kingdom, Realm, Union, and Dominion are of equal Feudal Rank

realm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rlm)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=realm

n. A community or territory over which a sovereign rules; a kingdom. A field, sphere, or province: the realm of science. See Synonyms at field.

-[Middle English realme, from Old French, alteration (influenced by Old French reial, royal), of Latin regimen, government from regere, to rule. See reg- in Indo-European Roots.]

Additionally, the roots of the English word,

Realm

(relm) n. kingdom; province; region; domain; sphere [O.Fr. realme, fr., L. regalis, royal]

Reference: A. H. Irvine, Ed., Collins New English Dictionary with Special Supplements for Canada, Collins, London, and Glasgow, Great Britain, pp. 1280, (1958). ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A polite request to ArmchairVexillologistDon

ArmchairVexillologistDon, this talk page is supposed to be for discussion of matters concerning the Wikipedia article "Canada". Could you please refrain from making all these postings that are completely off-topic, eg discussions of Roman history. I would also like to suggest that when making a comment that you use the "Show preview" button first to consider what you've written, rather than making half-a-dozen re-edits in rapid succession.

If you wish to debate the usage of "Dominion of Canada", please go ahead and post relevant material to support your assertion that it is the country's formal name. I doubt that you will be able to provide a convincing argument, because I believe that you're wrong on this point; but going off at lengthy tangents rather than addressing the issue at hand is not doing you any favours in changing the minds of those who disagree with you.

Thank you,
Silverhelm 20:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC).

The Union of British North America is another possible name (for the record)

Here is (for the record) another possible long form offical name, ie., The Union of British North America.

Clause (145).Section X.--Intercolonial Railway.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~sprague/bna.htm#footnote5

145. Inasmuch as the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have joined in a Declaration that the Construction of the Intercolonial Railway is essential to the Consolidation of the Union of British North America, and to the Assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed that Provision should be made for its immediate Construction by the Government of Canada; Therefore, in order to give effect to that Agreement, it shall be the Duty of the Government and Parliament of Canada to provide for the commencement, within Six Months after the Union, of a Railway connecting the River St. Lawrence with the City of Halifax in Nova Scotia, and for the Construction thereof without Intermission, and the Completion thereof with all practicable Speed. ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

In many old documents, all nouns are capitalized. That doesn't mean they form an official title. HistoryBA 22:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Too true, if we went simply by that logic, we could just as well call it "the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick".

I think the big source of confusion is the question of wheter the word "Dominion" in many documents is a proper name or a descriptive noun. You could for example have many documents that mention "The Republic of X" where the first part is simply use in place of "the country of..."

After all, what could have been a good substitute back in those days ? it wasn't a colony but not fully sovereign either so saying it was a "dominion" helped out. --Marc pasquin 01:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Possible Formal Names of this country, for Discussion

I would argue the following,

(i). Ground Zero (and others) ardently support the assertion that the long formal offical name of this country is just Canada (whereas I ardently support the long formal offical name of The Dominion of Canada).

(ii). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland founded the Colonies that today are,

The United States of America (Independence Date: July 4, 1776),

The Dominion of Canada (Independence Date: July 1, 1867),

The Commonwealth of Australia (Independence Date: Jan. 1, 1901),

The Dominion of New Zealand (Independence Date: Sept. 26, 1907).

(1). The Empire of Canada,

(2). The Kingdom of Canada,

(3). The Realm of Canada,

(4). The Union of Canada,

(5). The Dominion of Canada,

(6). Canada,

(7). The Empire of British North America,

(8). The Kingdom of British North America,

(9). The Realm of British North America,

(10). The Union of British North America,

(11). The Dominion of British North America,

(12). British North America,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Two points: (1) Would you mind signing your contribution above? (2) Canada simply did not become "independent" in 1867, by anyone's definition of the word. HistoryBA 22:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

HistoryBA,

I did not sign my above post as I was interrupted. Next up, I was not trying to hide anything (as the history would show it was me). Now, as per the word Independence, and the term the Dominion of, I am going to ask to everyone to refrain from "Political Science Double-Talk". Plains words, and saying what we mean, will make this discussion go smoother. Otherwise we will only lengthen the debate. ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you were trying to hide anything. But other editors shouldn't have to go to the contribution history to see who said what. I don't get your point about "Political Science Double Talk." Is that directed at my previous comment? Is it double talk to say that Canada was not independent in 1867? HistoryBA 22:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada was peacefully granted independence as a Dominion by the UK on July 1, 1867. Until the Statute of Westminister 1931, Canadian Legislation had to go the UK Parliament for (i) review (and possible alteration), and (ii) final approval. From 1931-1982, Canadian Legislation still had to go the UK Parliament for (ii) final apporval. Independence was effective granted in 1867. To belabour the point is heavily slanted towards the biased benchmark of Republic equals Independence.

That is not the tradition of the Dominion of Canada. I am going to change the name in the first sentence. ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

First, would you please provide the source for the phrase you quote, the one saying that Canada was granted "independence as a Dominion." Second, would you please justify your comment that I am arguing that "Republic equals Independence." Third, would you please justify your suggestion that I'm engaging in double talk. Once we clear up these side issues, I'm happy to discuss the substantive matter of whether Canada was independent in 1867. But it is pretty difficult to do so when you persist in misrepresenting what I am saying and quoting sources without providing a reference. HistoryBA 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Don, since this issue is still very, very much under debate, you should not change the article. Please remember that in the past you have been blocked for this sort of behaviour. Ground Zero | t 01:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The (3RR) rule is clear, no more than 2 reverts in 24 hours. The 3rd one gets you blocked for 24 hours. The history record shows 2 reverts to the Dominion of Canada, due to me. I shall consider changing it again in 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds.

BTW, are you a Republican, or a Constitutional-Monarchist? ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Don, you misunderstand the intent and the the letter of the the "Three-Revert Rule".

The intent of the 3RR is to reduce wasteful and pointless revert wars, and to encourage users to resolve issues on the talk pages. The discussion is on-going. Several editors (including me) have tkaen one posisiton, you, and you alone, have yaken another. Every time you try to impose your unique point of view, it will be reverted by someone with the opposite point of view. So you are wasting your time and ours. your time would be better spent trying to find evidence of a legal or constitutional nature. The intent of the 3RR is not to "entitle" you to any number of edits.

The letter of the policy is also clear: see Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Enforcement:

"Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee. This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording."

So please don't do this as it will just give ammunition to those who would rather see you banned. Ground Zero | t 01:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, I know the (3RR) rule. Two reverts in 24 hours is allowed, but 3 reverts get you banned for 24 hours. As per "ammunition", it is pretty weak stuff. You guys form cliques, and subvert the (3RR) rule as a matter of course around here. Examples of it are Legion. Just because I am one person with a position, and you folks are a group with another position, does not make your position correct. :ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you just don't get it. The point of the 3RR is to discourage revert wars, and you're saying that you're going to do just that. The enforcement provision says that you can't "game the rule" by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period. If you do not understand this, please ask for clarification. You really seem to determined not to get along with people here.

I am not saying that our position is correct because we outnumber you. I am saying that imposing your unique view on the article will just result in reversion. The only way you will get this article changed is by presenting evidence on the talk that convinces other editors. Otherwise, you will just cause a revert war that uyou will lose. Please don't waste your time and ours.

And, as others have noted, you must not use article talk pages to discuss things not related to the article. Your "hit list" of people you alege to be republicans does not belong here. It will be removed. Please review Wikipeida policeies and Wikipedia etiquette. You seem to be very unfamiliar with them. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 03:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hit List? That is not it all. I am not surprised by one name on that list. I carefully reviewed the earlier entries in this and related talk pages. It was expected. The (3RR) rule is useless, and I don't entend to fight it. I can't, I don't have a clique of revert buddies. As per being a Republican, Roman Catholic Irish English-Speaking Canadians, and most French-Canadians tend towards Republicanism. While that is in the USA tradition, it is not in Canada's. In fact, if one removes the Constitution-Monarchy system of Government, then the main historic reason that Canada and the USA are not the same country today evapourates.

The least that you could do Ground Zero is admit that you are Republican. You would prefer the Republic of Canada. I am of different slant. I would prefer the English-Speaking Provinces to become States of the USA, if Canada loses its Constitutional-Monarchy.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada is a country that is 148 years old.

refrain from "Political Science Double-Talk? So you would rather refrain from using precise technical language and rely on the vague meanings of everyday usage. Sounds like an ideal way to lengthen the debate to me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Derek Ross,

No. That is not what I said. Double-Talk is deliberately vague, dual-meaning. In this discussion, there are Constitutional Terms, Constitutional Traditions/Precidents, Heraldry, Vexillology, which must be covered and precisely used and explained, for this debate to maintain clarity, and to avoid becoming fruitless.

The Dominion of Canada is a country that is 148 years old. It received its Independence as a Dominion on July 1, 1867. That is a pretty clear statement.

Note, we Canadians do not start counting "Canada's Birthday" from 1931 (the Statute of Westminister 1931). To claim so is DOUBLE-TALK. ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

More of my two cents

I've been away for the weekend and away from this debate, which is a very good thing. I was getting very frustrated by Don's inability to provide any credible evidence, and because he often ignored points that I had made. That led me to make an inappropriate remark on User:JimWae's talk page, the one that is to which Don refers above. I withdraw that inappropriate remark and apologize for it.

As far as "union of British North America" or any name other than "Canada" or "Dominion of Canada". please let's not make Wikpedia a laughing stock by having its article on Canada state that its name is somehting that no Canadian has ever heard.

Laughing stock? Ha! The Union of British North America appears in Clause (145) of the British North America Act 1867. According to your own absurb bench-mark Ground Zero, this country would be name that. You framed that stupid arguement, not me. Save your condecension for someone would actually listens to your bluster.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you please consider withdrawing the word "stupid" above, which is not likely to advance the Wikipedia spirit of goodwill. HistoryBA 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that a proclamation about a coat of arms could make aa country's name official, or change its name. I continue to look to the constitutional acts of 1867 and 1982 that never once use the phrase "Dominion of Canada". I also note again that the proclamation of the maple leaf flag did not use "D of C", so even if a proclamation bout heraldyry or "vexillology" had any bearing on a country's official name, the proclamation of 1921 has now been superceded. I know that you say that the Coats of Arms is more official than the flag, but forgive me for not taking just on your say-so.

the mindset would very likely read the Empire of Canada, the Kingdom of Canada, the Realm of Canada, the Union of Canada, the Dominion of Canada, or (as Ground Zero atests) just Canada.

I do not think that we should be speculating on what the mindset of the day was because:

1. that would just be speculation, and speculation really doesn't belong in Wikipedia, especially when it is used to contradict fact,

Contradict Fact? No, what you have asserted (i.e., Canada) is not a fact. It contradicts your assertion that the full formal offical name of this country is Canada. It is a disputed interpretation of a the edited Clause (4) of the BNA Act 1867. You can not seem to get it through your head that you have made an interpretation of an EDITED CLAUSE.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

1. even if the authors may have intended us to guess what they were thinking, they did not write the phrase "Dominion of Canada" into the constitution, and it is, at best, vague. The Government of Canada interprets the official nname of Canada as being "Canada". You can have your own interpretation, but that's all it is. Your own interpretation.

No, they did write phrase The Union of British North America in Clause (145) of the British North America Act 1867, and so what you assert, your own low bench-mark for a "formal offical name" has been met.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the Constitutional Monarch of the UK, is the Figure-Head of State of the UK, and the Dominion of Canada, the Queen has title (the name and the ownership) of this country.

Ah, actually, if you look at her title, she is not the constitutional monarch of the Dominion of Canada, she is the Queen of Canada (inter alia).

Ground Zero, you are completely wrong. Queen Elizabeth II, is the Constitutional-Monarch of Canada (as well as the UK, Australia, New Zealand). You have absolutely no clue about this subject do you. Holy-crap.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is significant that the Canada Act 1982 does not use "Dominion of Canada". I am still looking for an explanation why the basic laws of this country (along with the BNA Act 1867) don't use what Don believes is the "official name" of the country in any instance. If it's official, why would it not be used in the most important documents in the country? (And no, I don't think anyone would agree that the proclamation of the coat of arms is more important than the documents the set out the establishment of the country, how it will be governed, relationship to the Crown, etc.)

Furthermore, if I were a republic-minded prime minister looking to diminish our links to the UK and the Crown, would I not take the opportunity presented by the patriation of the constitution in 1982 to just go ahead and change the country's name to "Canada", if that weren't already the case? All I would have to do is insert a short clause in the Canada Act 1982 that says,

Notwithstanding the Royal Proclamation of 1921, a bunch of old textbooks, and somebody's birth certificate, the official name of the country is "Canada".

And then the issue would be settled. It wasn't done because it didn't have to be one. The name was already "Canada".

You are using FALSE LOGIC. If former PM Pierre Trudeau had explicitly put in your suggested very clear clause, the Constitutional Ammendment would of been REJECTED. To offically change a name is very specific, precise, and exacting legal procedure. The Dominion of Canada is the offical name of this country taken on in 1867, and in 1982, Trudeau just used the short form version Canada. Constitutionally, the long form name (i.e., the Dominion of Canada) take precidence (i.e., of higher rank) than the short form name(i.e., Canada). What Trudeau did was to carefully craft the Constitutional Ammendment, the Canada Act 1982, that sets up the slide into Republicanism.

Just like deValeria did with the Irish Free State, to Eire, then to the Republic of Ireland.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as the Canada's name article goes, I created that because the discussion of the country's name was getting to be too long for the main article, and I wanted to incorporate sections on other names considered, how the name "Canada" (in whatever form) was chosen, and alternative etymologies of "Canada" that have been proposed. I think that merits an article on its own, but I don't particularly care about the name of the article, although it should represent all of the content of that article, and not just the question of "Dominion" or not.

As far as Don's questions about me, I will say that I am an anglophone, and can speak French. Whether I am a monarchist or a republican or something in between, is not germane to the debate. I am here to discuss the facts of the matter, and not what I wish to be the case.

Finally, out of consideration for other editors, and especially for those with visual impairments, please post you comments like other editors do, and do not insert lots of blank spaces into your comments. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 01:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Don, I am not clear why you are making a big fus about Clause 4 being edited. The 1893 version reads:

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

This was "Partially repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.). As originally enacted the section read as follows:"

4. The subsequent Provisions of this Act shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the Day appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen's Proclamation; and in the same Provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

Not much difference there.

As far as the point about the Queen's title, you missed my point. My point is that you referred to her as the "whatever" of the Dominion of Canada. If you look at her title, you will see that it refers to her as the "whatever" of Canada. I was not arguing about whether or not she is the constitutional monarch of Canada. Of course she is. It didn't occur to me that that had to be explained to you. Her title, however, makes no mention of what you consider to be the official or formal name of the country.

the Constitutional Ammendment would of been REJECTED.

It is speculation that it would have been rejected. I, personally, do not think that, given the magnitude of aother amendments and issues being discussed, anyone would have cared about changing the name of the country from something that hadn't been uysed in decades.

As far as the "Union of British North America", I do not assert that anything written in the constitution can be our official name. I assert that

1. the Constitution, being what established Canada and what sets out how it shall be governed, is the paramount source in the discussion about what our official name is,
2. the Constitution says in Clause 3, "... the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly", and
3. the Constitution does not say anywhere that they shall form one Dominion under the Name of the Dominion of Canada.

I may, at some point, explain to you on your talk page my complicated position on the monarchy. I do not fit a neat label like "monarchist" or "republican". But that is not an appropriate or relevant discussion for this talk page, nor it is appropriate or relevant for you to try to label me anything here. Please deal with the arguments presented, and not the people involved. Ground Zero | t 05:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Go read the original text. From Preamble to Clause (6). Then you will see where I am going with this. Next up, you have an overbarring, and ridiculing tone. I am gonna take a break from this for a bit.

"form one Dominion under the Name of Canada."

Meaning: Long Form Name = Clarifying term( insert short form name ),

e.g., The Dominion of Canada = The Dominion of (Canada).

Long Form Name = The Dominion of Canada.

Short Form = Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I've read the original text. The extra clauses really don't add anything. You have your interpretation, and I have my simpler interpretation:

"form one Dominion under the Name of Canada."

This says the name is Canada.

Its "name" is Canada. Yes its name. What kind of name? A short form name, of the Dominion. Its long form name is the Dominion of Canada. ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a dominion, so many people, including the government for a long time, called it the Dominion of Canada. This was not wrong, nor does it make it the name bestowed on the country by the Constitution.

The Union of British North America?... it is written in the BNA Act 1867.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's see what other people say.

As far as my "over-bearing and ridiculing tone", I agree that the discussion has been heated. I have been frustrated that I have had to repeat myself, that you have tried to personalize this discussion on this talk page, and that you have wondered off into extraneous points that I and others have to wade through to try to figure out if there is any relevance to this discussion. You have also ridiculed me (You framed that stupid arguement, not me. Save your condecension for someone would actually listens to your bluster. and You have absolutely no clue about this subject do you. Holy-crap.), so I think we are both to blame for the heated nature of the discussion. Ground Zero | t 05:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Look-it, you began this tone, I merely returned "the courtesy". I am not even fired up yet. And yes, it was you that framed that stupid arguement for a possible long form offical name of this country being the Union of British North America. If you frame any other "Duzies" I'll point them out to you, about how flawed your logic actually is in this matter. Indeed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, would you please consider withdrawing the word "stupid." HistoryBA 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, I've been following this conversation from the start. (First, I'd like to applaud you for how civil you've booth been. Yes, it's a little heated, but it could have turned at many points.) From what I've read, Ground Zero has referred to many official, and otherwise, documents that fairly clearly point to the name being simply Canada. In other cases he has convincingly explained that it was the styling of the day, and may have been used similarly in documents drafted at the time. ArmchairVexillologistDon has referred to one document that seems to point to the name being Dominion of Canada. I know this isn't "official", but looking at other encyclopedias (Britannica, MSN Encarta) all articles related to Canada use only Canada in the title. The term Dominion of Canada occurs once in the entire article on page 26. I argue that no matter the finding of the official name of Canada, the article name remain as Canada. I believe (not argue) that the official name of Canada is simply Canada and Dominion of Canada was once only a common styling.
Zhatt 07:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

An attempt at restoring some sanity

I pointed out above that the BNA Act is ambiguous; the fact that person A says that it indisputably means X, and that person B says that is indisputably means Y, is evidence of this. But even if the wording weren't ambiguous, I don't see that there can be any doubt that "Dominion of Canada" was used as a formal name for the country. Some examples of usage, by way of proof:

A. Examples of official usage.
1. Dominion of Canada v. Prov. of Ontario [1910] A.C. 637 (Canada)
2. "Agreement Between the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario" [1905]
3. Statute of Westminster [1931] 22 Geo. V c.4 (UK)
4a. $1 banknote, dated 1917
4b. 25-cent banknote, dated 1900
5. Head tax receipt, dated 1918
6. War Savings Certificate, dated 1944
7. British North America Act, 1886 49 & 50 Vic. c.35 (UK) [.pdf format]
8. The Lac Seul Conservation Act, 1928

B. Examples of semi-official usage.
1. Plaque commemorating the negotiations for confederation

C. Examples of non-official usage.
1. Dominion of Canada Rifle Association
2. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co.
3. An American map dated 1875

These examples are not of course of recent origin. Hence my earlier point: the style "Dominion of Canada" was once in use, but has given way to the plain "Canada". Because this "change" is not of the type "Dominion of Canada" to (e.g.) "United Provinces of Canada", no legislative change has proved necessary, especially given the woolly wording of the 1867 act. That act is today interpreted as naming the country "Canada", but was once interpreted as naming it "Dominion of Canada" (and if it wasn't, where did the phrase come from?).

As to the Queen's title of "Queen of Canada", this is irrelevant as evidence to support either point of view. She is also "Queen of Australia", but that country's formal name is "Commonwealth of Australia".

I shall now sit back and await sensible discussion of these points.

Cheers, Silverhelm 07:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC).

Hello Silverhelm,

A return to sanity? I shall make the attempt. Thanks for the interjection, and the reality-check. I appreciate that indeed. You have made some very thoughtful arguements, and I do understand the vein-of-thought that you are trying to convey. The thing is Constitutional Tradition and Precident is clear on this matter. To change a formal long form name one must,

(i). clearly state the long form name to be recinded,

(ii). explicitly invoke the revoking,

(iii). explicitly indicate the new name to be bestowed,

(iv). indicate the form of the name (i.e., full length formal, or short form).

Eureka! Here we are.

7. British North America Act, 1886 49 & 50 Vic. c.35 (UK) [.pdf format]

The Dominion of Canada... thank God!

I will type out the original text of the British North America Act 1867, (from the Preamble to Clause (6)), to illustrate this principle, and analyse the Constitutional meaning.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I that Zhatt raises a convincing point. If other encyclopedias have not found evidence that "D of C" is official, why do we think we ca? Silverhelm also provides credible evidence. I think that s/he makes a good argument for "Dominion of Canada" being the "former formal name". As I have said all along, it used to be commonly used, as in 1921 Royal Proclamation. It is no longer commonly used, as evidenced by the 1965 Royal Proclamation. Ground Zero | t 12:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a small subsection in the article addressing the question in a neutral way, but this article cannot assert that Dominion of Canada is objectively the nation's official name since even the federal government doesn't view the matter that way. It seems to me that this argument is essentially being made to push POV. Don also needs to can the assertion that this is a Republican vs. Monarchist debate; it's a false pretense that's getting annoying as hell. Bearcat 02:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bearcat,

Whether this debate "annoys" you or not, is not my concern. At present the Dominion of Canada is a Constiutional-Monarchy, with a Constitution Monarch as our Figure-Head of State (i.e., Queen Elizabeth II, reign 1952-today). I shall not "can" the Republicanism part of this discussion. Republicans are narrow minded if they view Canada as not being Independent as a Dominion, on July 1, 1867. The fashion in which the USA won its Independence as a Republic (July 4, 1776) is an honourable way as well. It is just not the tradition of the Dominion of Canada, as all. ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding my point. This is a debate about whether the Wikipedia article on Canada should or should not state that the country's official name is the "Dominion of Canada"; IT IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT REPUBLICANISM VS. MONARCHISM. Bearcat 03:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

And I am stating that the two issues are intimately linked. The formal long form name of this country is the Dominion of Canada (founded July 1, 1867). There has never been a

(i). Constitutional Amendment,

(ii). Royal Proclaimation,

(iii). Royal Warrant,

(iv). (Royal) Letters Patent,

that has changed the formal name the Dominion of Canada, to Canada. The only reason people would want the "the Dominion of" excluded is their desire to break with the Constitutional Monarchy.

There is no other reason. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The only reason people would want the "the Dominion of" excluded is their desire to break with the Constitutional Monarchy.

That is an entirely false statement. I'm not quite sure where I stand politically, but I know I am neither republican nor monarchist, yet I believe that the official name of the country is Canada, not Dominion of Canada. Political alignment and beliefs have nothing to do with this argument about facts. The fact that you are pushing this debate into a political one shows that you are being driven by POV. Zhatt 05:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

No, that statement is not incorrect. The Dominion of Canada expresses exactly our Constitution-Monarchy form of Government. There is no uncertainity on that score. The only motivation to change the name to just Canada is to make a "clean break" with our British Commonwealth past.

Humans are not totally unfeeling creatures. Thus everyone has some POV, and no-one has a NPOV. The trick is to express ones information in the article section of Wikipedia, in the least biased POV. A NPOV is a falicy. It does not exist.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

They are not linked issues; that you think they are suggests a bias on your part at least as strong, and arguably stronger, than the bias you think you're combatting. Bearcat 06:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

They are linked issues. A Constitutional-Monarchist would support the everyday usage of this country's long form offical name (i.e., the Dominion of Canada). A Republican would support the everyday usage of this country's short form name (i.e., Canada). Then later after obscuring and muddying the waters, start asserting that Canada was the only name all along. ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

the "Vexologist" seems to be contending that there was some earlier version of BNA Act 1867 that says DoC but it has been amended -- and his argument, if true, would defeat itself. However, the amendments are clearly indicated in on-line versions & they do not touch the name. They capitalized lots of nouns in those days. DoC was NEVER the official name - long or short - though DoC was used on money, etc, as some sort of stylized term - perhaps though it was those using DoC on those documents that were trying to rewrite history without amending BNA. "Vexologist" offers nothing but wishful meanderings -- and botherment. I see little difference in his behaviour from that of a troll --JimWae 06:30, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

JimWae, I see very little useful input from you. Please, you should "chill-out", a wee-bit eh. My arguement is simple, the Dominion of Canada is the offical long form name of this country. Since 1963, and the Federal Liberals of Lester B. Pearson, there has been a concerted effort to break from our British Commonwealth past. They do this by actively using the short form name (i.e., Canada) and by watering down the Canadian Education system. Since Pearson in 1963, for 33 and 1/2 years there were Liberals in power, and only 8 and 1/2 years have were been Conservatives in Government. The Liberals have been busy attempting to bury our past, but they have not been completely successful, yet. ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverhelm has presented an interesting argument, and AVD has introduced some new evidence, specifically the BNA Act 1886. Don seems to conclude that the BNA Act 1886 proves that the formal name is DofC because it uses that name, but he rejects the proposition that the use of "Canada" by the BNA Act 1867 is proof that this is the formal name.

There are two questions that I seek to answer here:

1. Is there a constitutional or statutory definition of the formal name of the country?
2. If a the formal name has not been set out by statute, then what is the formal name that has been determined by use?

I continue to believe that Clause 3 of the BNA Act 1867 defines the formal name of the country as follows: "... the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly". However, I recognize that not everyone shares that view.

The fact that the BNA Act 1867 does not use the phrase "Dominion of Canada" anywhere is evidence that that was not defined as the formal name at the time of Confederation. No evidence has been provided that any later statute ever defined the formal name to be the "Dominion of Canada", only that that phrase was used.

If we set aside Clause 3 as "disputed", then we move to the second question, in the absence of a statutorily-defined formal name, what was the formal name that was defined by use? There is clear evidence that both "Canada" and "Dominion of Canada" were used as the formal name of the country: "Canada" was used in the BNA Act, which established the country, and "D of C" was used in the BNA Act 1886, the Royal Proclamation of the coats of arms in1921, and documents cited by Silverhelm.

So if the formal name is defined by usage, then both "Canada" and "D of C" were formal names for the country.

However, for the past forty yaers, only "Canada" has been used by the Government of Canada, including the Royal Proclamation of the national flag in 1965, the Canada Act 1982, and so on. Therefore, if the formal name is defined by usage, then the only current formal name is "Canada".

I do not think that it would make sense to argue that the formal name determined by usage could not be changed except by statute.

"The formal long form name of this country is the Dominion of Canada (founded July 1, 1867). There has never been a (i) Constitutional Amendment, (ii) Royal Proclaimation, (iii) Royal Warrant, (iv) (Royal) Letters Patent, that has changed the formal name the Dominion of Canada, to Canada. The only reason people would want the "the Dominion of" excluded is their desire to break with the Constitutional Monarchy."

The problem here is that was never any of those things to explicitly define the Dominion of Canada as the formal name, either. the argument that "there was never any legal change to the name" breaks down where the name was never explicitly legally defined in the first place.

"A Constitutional-Monarchist would support the everyday usage of this country's long form offical name (i.e., the Dominion of Canada). A Republican would support the everyday usage of this country's short form name (i.e., Canada)."

Don misses the point here. The debate should not be about what we want the name to be, or what we think it should be, but about what it is. It is pretty clear to me that Don strongly believes that it should be the "Dominion of Canada", and is therefore not willing to consider any evidence or arguments about the facts of the situation.

Ground Zero, I am arguing that the Dominion of Canada is the offical name of this country. Not that you would ever "hear it". Your mind is closed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I do not think that any attempt should be made now or in the foreseeable future to remove the constitutiona monarchy from our political system. I think that "Dominion of Canada" has a charming ring to it, and if Canada were one of only two dominions left in the world, that would help us stand out. But what I want means nothing here: I think that the evidence is clear that "Dominion of Canada", even if it was previously one of the formal names of the country, is no longer, and the only formal name is "Canada". Furthermore, I see no reason why "Canada" cannot continue indefinitely as a constitutional monarchy without the "Dominion of" in front of the name. It's worked for the past four decades.

As far as Matthew Spurrell's unilateral imposition of a "settlement" of the issue goes, it doesn't work because it implies that it is still referred to as the "D of C". There are very few people who still do so , outside of the the "Monarchist League" and the Royal Canadian Legion". I think that adding a "formerly" into Matthew's edit would fix things up.

Addendum: these organizations, although they use terms such as "Dominion Chairman" and "Dominion Command", do not refer to the country as the "Dominion of Canada" on their websites. So I donn't know who does refer to it as that, other than two insistent Wikipedia editors. Ground Zero | t 22:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I know this is off-topic, but Don, I am curious to know why you insist on adding in all those extra blank lines. Do you have no concern for visually impaired people reading Wikipedia with the assistance of a screen reader/speech synthesizer? Ground Zero | t 13:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, I shall add the blank lines as I please.ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

And show how inconsiderate of other readers, inlcuding those with disabilities, you are willing to be. Have a nice day. Ground Zero | t 22:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Inconsiderate? How about incessantly harping over a minor detail (blank spaces) like its a matter of life and death. Good grief, you can be quite "the pain." 67.70.130.224 02:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've just pointed out how you can be more considerate of other users, and you refuse to do so and provide no reason whatsoever. I have been trying to understand why you would behave in such a way. I guess this must just reflect your character. Ground Zero | t 13:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I know what my rifle is licenced under it is called the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, There is also the bank I use the Dominion of Canada Trust Company, and various other Canadian companies that use the word Dominion of Canada in their names. Even in my World Book encyclopaedia it says the official name of the country is the Dominion of Canada. To say it is not used at all or was used is misleading. The fact is people still use it I use it I know people who use it and probably a great deal of the country uses it. Maybe Ground Zero doesn't use it but you are not the boss of what people say or what phrases people use to refer to their country and you do not own Wikipedia. You can not provide any information to say otherwise and the fact remains various institutions, people, and books recite the name so that counts as being used to me. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 7 September 15:32 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada Trust Company and the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company are companies. They can call themselves whatever they like. My Dominion of Canada General Insurance policy refers to the country as "Canada", and in correspondence, they use "Dominion of Canada" as a short form for the name of their company. I have never heard of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, and suspect that most people haven't. I don't think their choice of name is sufficient to warrant putting something in the first sentence of an article about Canada. The DCRA was founded in 1868, and they probably chose that name because "D of C" was commonly used at the time, and haven't bothered to change their name to the currently-used name.

"Canada" is what is used by the Government of Canada, the Queen of Canada (see the Royal Proclamation of the National Flag, 1965), the Monarchist League of Canada, the Royal Canadian Legion.

I do not own Wikipedia, and nor do you. This sort of personal attack is the sort of thing that pops up whenever Person B reverts an edit that Person A has made. "You don't own Wikipedia" implies that Person A is entitled to make edits, but Person B is not. Sorry, Wikipedia does not work that way. I will also note that there is a large number of other editors who agree with me on this issue, and who disgree with you. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Ground Zero | t 13:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The Irish Free State (Dec6., 1921), then Eire (1937), and finally the Republic of Ireland (1949).

The discussion Constitutional-Monarchy versus Republicanism has been critisized by other members. The inclusion of "this topic" is quite relavent to the Dominion of Canada versus Canada debate.

Please read this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Irish_Free_State ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum; that is the basis for the criticism.

The Irish example is also entirely irrelevant as to Canada's constitutional history, for what one would hope would be rather obvious reasons.

Silverhelm 15:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC).

Silverhelm, the United States of America (July 1, 1776), the Dominion of Canada (July 1, 1867), the Commonwealth of Australia (Jan 1, 1901), the Dominion of New Zealand (1907), the Union of South Africa (1910), the Irish Free State (Dec 6, 1921), the Dominion of India (Aug. 1947), and the Dominion of Pakistan (Aug. 1947) are all links in a chain. Canada does not exist in a vacuum. ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You have provided a list of names of states with the date of their inception, without explaining what purpose it serves, which makes it rather difficult to respond.

However, I have to point out again that the example of Ireland is of no relevance to any discussion involving Canada, other than as part of a broader discussion of the evolution of the status of "dominion" within the British Empire/Commonwealth; and such a discussion (a) belongs elsewhere, and (b) is of no consequence with regard to the formal name of Canada or any other state.

Silverhelm 20:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC).

Terms: Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, and Republic

Before people unthinkingly wade into the Dominion of Canada versus Canada long form offical name discussion, please review the terms,

(i). Absolute Monarchy,

(ii). Constitutional Monarchy,

(iii). Republic.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll

I see no point in voting in this.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you agree that the official name of "Canada" is "Canada" and not the "Dominion of Canada"?

Yes

1. Homey 14:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Indefatigable 15:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC). However, BNA 1867 clearly states Canada is officially a dominion, so "dominion of C" (small d) is a correct description, but not the official name (due to lack of recent official use).
3. Ground Zero | t 15:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Joshuapaquin No mention in Canada Act 1982. If it were the official name, it would be in there. This is too bad, I like the sound of "Dominion of Canada"...
5. Astrotrain 17:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
6. Luigizanasi 18:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC). Having followed the debate from a relatively neutral perspective, it is clear that the arguments in favour of "Dominion of Canada", especially for the last 40 years, are pretty weak.
7. SimonP 18:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC), though polls are a bad way to decide issues of fact.
8. CJCurrie 18:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Mindmatrix 19:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
10. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-09-7 T 20:31:58 Z (1998 and 2005 Canadian Global Almanacs list the long-form name as "Canada".)
11. Zhatt 21:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
12. Samaritan 22:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC) ...but. Seeing a recent statement that it was from the Governor-General, Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister of Foreign Affairs or Minister of Canadian Heritage might convince me otherwise. But presenting an "official name" of a country that the country isn't even seen admitting to would be a bit specious. Alternatively, were a lawsuit filed arguing that Dominion of Canada was still the official name in law, that would bear mention while the issue was before the courts.
13. --rob 23:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
14. --JimWae 02:17, 2005 September 8 (UTC) There is not a shred of evidence that Canada's name (long or short) was ever officially DoC. There is evidence only that it was called DoC for a while by some

No

1. Draco 12:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

   Note: this is Draco's only edit in WP (so far). Mindmatrix 19:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 7 September 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Undecided

Polling of People's lack of Knowledge

1. Joshuapaquin No mention in Canada Act 1982. If it were the official name, it would be in there. This is too bad, I like the sound of "Dominion of Canada"...

New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 ?

South Africa Act 1909?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hold all the "Polls you want". It only determines if this page will contain the Dominion of Canada, or not. It does nothing to resolve the issue of whether you folks are correct, or not. I am just gonna keep presenting my findings, references, and arguements. Notwithstand your ill-informed vote.

The Dominion of Canada, and the Dominion of New Zealand are the correct long form offical names of those two countries, and I shall continue to argue the case (for both). ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I was also uncomfortable with the idea of holding a poll, but HOTR explained to me that polls have been held in the past where agreement has not been reached to determine which argument is more convincing. So this poll is not based on what people believe, but on what they conclude having reviewed the arguments presented. This discussion is about the formal name of Canada. You may wish to make your case with regard to New Zealand at Talk:New Zealand. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The case of the Dominion of Canada is linked, and encumbent on the possible arguing of the case of the Dominion of New Zealand. I care not what you ill-informed people vote, it still does not make you folks correct. ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it should settle the discussion on this board so that it doesn't continue ad infinitum. AVD, this has come up before, it's time to settle it and move on. Also, wikipedia is not a venue for original research, if it is the accepted consensus among reference books that the country's formal name is Canada not the Dominion of Canada then it's not for us to disagree. Perhaps you should take your arguments to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of Canada and once you convince them that you are correct and that they should revise the "Canada" entry in their encyclopedias you can then come back here and we'll be happy to correct our article. I'm afraid though that we can't change our article on the strength of a fifty year old reference book. Homey 19:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Homey; we've had this discussion before. Having the same discussion every six months will not change the issue, nor is it likely to change the outcome. The article already includes a reference to "Dominion of Canada", which is more than sufficient from my perspective. Adherence to historical terminology no longer in use by the public or the government seems inappropriate. And assuming those who vote differently from you are ignorant is insulting. Mindmatrix 19:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Your sensibilties are not my concern. A majority vote in favour, does not absolve the majority from being ignorant of the true name (i.e, the Dominion of Canada).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I never said my sensibilities were offended in any way; I said it was an insult. A minor quibble, and I won't pursue it further... Mindmatrix 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the purpose of this poll is to determine whether or not there is a consensus amongst editors. If there is then we should declare the matter closed. Homey 19:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not original research. I shall continue the discussion on the Dominion of Canada as long as I please. You may take me up infront of the ArbCom again, if you wish.

19:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think any talk of the ArbComm is premature, particularly as you have confined yourself to the Talk pages and have not actually edited the article against consensus. In any case, if and when you're taken to the ArbComm it will not be by me. I don't have the time. Homey 19:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Further discussion of the matter should be in a dedicated page, rather than here, as any queries or comments on the actual article are getting lost among all this babble posted by Don. Astrotrain 19:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Babble? Astrotrain you do not have to read this page. Please move on then eh. I shall continue to discuss the Dominion of Canada as the offical name of this country, for as long as I wish. ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I edit the Canada page, and other Canadian pages, therefore I am entitled to be able to read the discussion pages without having to trawl through your ramblings. Astrotrain 20:50, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain, Entitled? Who do you think you are? If you view my discussion here as ramblings, then don't read it, or file an ArbCom complaint. Otherwise get off your "high-horse".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 ?

South Africa Act 1909?

Sorry AVD but neither of these acts have any standing in Canada. By your argument, because Australia's formal name has been the "Commonwealth of Australia" since its inception, Canada's full name must be "The Commonwealth of Canada". Homey 21:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the South Africa Act has been superceded. What was once known as the Union of South Africa is now the Republic of South Africa. But such trifle facts are irrelevant... Mindmatrix 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Babble? Astrotrain you do not have to read this page

AVD, this is not your page, it belongs to the community and you need to respect other editors and the rules of the community. Please try to keep your comments on topic and the keep the verbiage and extraneous comments to a minimum. Also, you have to try to respect the consensus of the community. Put forward an argument but if afterwards the consensus is against you please respect that rather than continue ad infinitum. Homey 21:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

HOTR, the consensus is wrong. Canada is not the long form offical name of this country, it is the Dominion of Canada. You folks may form a consensus that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, and that still does not make it a fact.

Plain and simple, I am going to continue my discussion of the Dominion of Canada topic, unless an ArbCom complaint is filed against me. Until then, I shall continue.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a community project. You are welcome to write that Canada's official name is "Dominion of Canada" on your own Internet site, but on Wikipedia you have to convince others. Making unsubtantiated allegations about others, like saying that anyone who disagrees with you must be a republican, doesn't do much to help your case. HistoryBA 02:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

HistoryBA, I am looking for the text of the Royal Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand 1907. Have you ever seen it?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have also been looking for this, but have not found it. This New Zealand parliamentary report does have an interesting section on New Zealand's dominion status. It reads:

Following the 1907 Imperial Conference the New Zealand House of Representatives passed a motion respectfully requesting that His Majesty the King “take such steps as he may consider necessary” to change the designation of New Zealand from the “Colony of New Zealand” to the “Dominion of New Zealand”. Adoption of the designation of Dominion would, Prime Minister Joseph Ward declared, “raise the status of New Zealand” and “have no other effect than that of doing the country good”. A Royal Proclamation granting New Zealand Dominion status was issued on 9 September, 1907 and took effect on 26 September 1907.

It quite clearly states that dominion status was a designation, not part of the name, equal to the pre-1907 designation "Colony of New Zealand." As "Colony of New Zealand" was never an official name, "Dominion of New Zealand" would also have just been a designation. - SimonP 03:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

P. Simon, designation is a distinguishing name or title.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=designation

That is a long form offical name of a country. As well the offical pre-1907 name was the Colony of New Zealand. This Royal Proclamation changed it to the Dominion of New Zealand.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Distinguishing does not mean official. Distinguish means "perceive as being different or distinct." A distinguishing name is the opposite of an official one. A distinguishing name is one that adds extra information to the official name, to differentiate between two entities with the same name. In this case New Zealand as a colony and as a dominion had the same official name: New Zealand. To tell the two entities apart a the word dominion was added to distinguish them. Prior to the creation of the dominion a distinguishing name was not needed, as the colony was the only entity ever to have been named New Zealand. This could explain is why all official documents from this period, such as this 1841 treaty and the 1869 proclamation of the flag, simply use "New Zealand". - SimonP 04:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point - and "Dominion by the Name of Canada" is a way of distinguishing Canada from "Province of Canada"--JimWae 04:51, 2005 September 8 (UTC) As in German, every noun was capitalized in BNA Act 1867. The Act of Union 1840 clearly said the name then was Province of Canada--JimWae 19:52, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster 1931

Statute of Westminster, 1931

CHAPTER 4 OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 22 GEORGE V

can be read here (Posted by User:ArmchairVexillologistDon.)

• The Statute of Westminster uses "Dominion of Canada" and the BNA Act 1867 uses "Canada". Neither defines "Dominion of Canada" to be the formal name. As I've noted above, I think that the BNA Act 1867 defines the name to be "Canada", and only "Canada", but if you're trying to build a case that "Dominion of Canada" became a formal name through official use, then there is ample evidence that for the past 40 years, the only formal name defined by official use has been "Canada".

• Also, the "Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada, Effective October 1, 1947, "GEORGE R." CANADA" (here:[3]) use only "Canada". So there is evidence that both terms were used officially in years gone by, but none that has been presented that "D of C" continues to be used officially. Ground Zero | t 13:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Some Perspective on Long Form Offical Names versus Short Form Names

I am an English-Canadian from the Province of Ontario. My first language is English. I was in early French Emmersion from Kindergarten to Grade 3. I used to be fluent in French, but today I am average (basic).

Case in Point: Mexico

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/mx.html

Official name: Estados Unidos Mexicanos / United Mexican States / États-Unis du Mexique

Short-form names: México / Mexico / Mexique

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

I have never studied the Spanish Language, and I am completely ignorant of its traditions/subtileness. I am however well versed in the French Language. The English Language is one of context. In English we have 1 way to say 5 things, and the context determines which of 5 that it is. In French, it is the opposite, they have 5 ways to say 1 thing, in other words it is a language of subtile diferences. If you ever are given a Legal Document in French, insist on an English Translation (do not sign the French one).

Anyways, les Etats Unis du Mexique, translates into the United States of Mexico. However, I have seen other references that cite the long form offical name as the United Mexican States. You folks see where the trouble comes in. In English, the long form offical name of Canada is the Dominion of Canada, wheres in French it is la Dominion du Canada. If one takes the English-Speaking mindset, the Dominion of Canada is the formal name (i.e., context based wise), however if ones takes the French-Speaking mindset, one may subtilely pick it apart, and argue the root name is Canada (i.e., subtile difference wise).

To our American Bretheren, the long form offical name of your country is the United States of America. The short form names I have seen are, America, the United States, or the States. The long form offical name of your country is not America, nor the United American States. My fellow North Americans, how would you feel if a majority of Wikipedians ignorantly (i.e., didn't know any better) ardently insisted that your countries long form Offical Name was either America, or the United American States. If you think on that issue, then you shall know how I feel right now at this moment, on Wikipedia. ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we all agree that America is an unofficial short form, and the official names is United States of America. However, you are ignoring that unofficial long forms exist just as much as unofficial short forms. For instance "Republic of the United States of America" is an unofficial long form, similar to "Dominion of Canada." Like the phrase "Dominion of Canada," "Republic of the United States" was used in official documents, such as this treaty, but that does not make it an official name. - SimonP 17:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, P. Simon, "the Republic of" was not invoked in the Declaration of Independence (July 1, 1776). In fact, the Federal Republic system of the USA, is completely different from the French Republican system.

To clearly elucidate the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776),

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

one would be prudent to read the Olive Branch Petition (July 5, 1775),

http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/primarysources/revolution/docs/olive.html

which was drafted by the Due Authority of (American) Continental Congress, after "the Shot Heard Around the World", on April 19, 1775, at Lexignton and Concord.

http://earlyamerica.com/shot_heard.htm

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Don, your argument seems to be, "Other countries have formal long names, therefore Canada must have one, too." My response to that is that "Dominion of Canada" was never defined explicitly in statute or by proclamation as Canada's formal long name. It was used, along with "Canada", until after World War II. It has fallen into disuse, and therefore the only name that this country has is "Canada". "Canada" is the formal and informal long and short name. This makes Canada different from those two republics to those south of us, and from other former British colonies around the world. (And we should celebrate our differences from other countries instead of insisting that we have to be like everybody else.) If Canada has chosen not to have a formal long name that is different from its short name, no-one can force us to have one unless they send in troops. There is no global law that says every country has to have a long name and a short name.

After far as the two republics to the south of us, their long names are used in the constitutional documents that established them:

US Declaration of Independence, 1776: "We, Therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...."

Articles of Confederation, 1777: "ARTICLE I. The stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America." "

The Constitution of the United States, 1783: "Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Constitución de 1824 (Mexico): "En el nombre de Dios todopoderoso, autor y supremo legislador de la sociedad. El Congreso general constituyente de la nación mexicana, en desempeño de los deberes que le han impuesto sus comitentes, para fijar su independencia política, establecer y afirmar su libertad, y promover su prosperidad y gloria, decreta la siguiente: Constitución de los Estados Unidos mexicanos." This was the first republican constitution.)

Constitution of Mexico, 1917: "TITLE ONE: Chapter I: Individual Guarantees: Article 1. Every person in the United Mexican States shall enjoy the guarantees granted by this Constitution, which cannot be restricted or suspended except in such cases and under such conditions as are herein provided." (This is the present constitution.)

Canada's constitutional acts have used "Canada" (1867 and 1982) and "Dominion of Canada" (1886, 1931 Statute of Westminister) making neither the official name to the exclusion of the other. But "Dominion of Canada" was never made official and is no longer used. Ground Zero | t 17:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Don wrote: ""the Republic of" was not invoked in the Declaration of Independence (July 1, 1776). "

Similarly, "the Dominion of Canada" was not invoked in the BNA Act 1867. Ahem. Ground Zero | t 18:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the French translation of the name Dominion of Canada it is Puissance du Canada. The expression was never popular in Quebec, Puissance (litteraly "Power", "Strength" or "Force") being even more pretentious and imperialistic than "Dominion". "Dominion" was also used as a loanword in French, as in the sentence Le Canada de nos pères est aujourd'hui l'une des quatres provinces d'un nouveau Dominion britannique en Amérique (The Canada of our fathers is today one of the four provinces of a new British Dominion in America.)

The use of the loanword Dominion was common in French language litterature of all kinds in Quebec as it allowed to make a necessary distinction between the first Canada, the one born of the French colonization in 1608 and the new British one built on top of it 1867. However today, nobody ever refers to the federal Canada as le Dominion or la Puissance in French. The expression has fallen out of usage just like in English some time after the second world war. -- Mathieugp 19:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour, G.P. Mathieu,

Comment sa vas? Le mot "Dominion" est une mot Royalist. Ca s'est certain. Mais, le langue Anglais est une combination du l'Allemagne ("Anglo-Saxon), est du Francais (les Norman-Francais).

Felicitations,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The Language of the Construction of Long Form Offical Names versus Short Form Names

Simply put, a Long-Form Offical name in the English Language (which is context based wise) can be expressed as follows below,

Long Form Offical Name = Qualifying Term(short form name)

(1). Absolute Monarchy, and Constitution-Monarchy Qualifying Terms.

These Qualifying Terms (i.e., prefixes) are based on the Feudal Ranking System,

Empire of,

Kingdom of (same rank as Realm, Union, Commonwealth, and Dominion),

Principality of,

Duchy of,

March of,

Earldom of,

County of,

Estate of.

(2). Republican Qualifying Terms.

Republic of,

Islamic Republic of.

(3). Indeterminate Qualifying Terms.

United Provinces of,

United States of,

Confederate States of,

Federated States of,

Federation of,

Confederated States of,

Confederation of,

Confederacy of,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's World Fact Book lists the long name and short name for every territory in the world, in English and in the local language.

Here is what it says about Canada:

"conventional long form: none "

"conventional short form: Canada "

Mongolia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, New Zealand, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, and Ireland also fall into the category of countries without a "conventional long name". There may be others -- I didn't look through them all. Or maybe the CIA are just a bunch of ignorant know-nothings, too. Ground Zero | t 20:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"The Republic of Ireland" is the country's (post-1949) Long Form Offical Name

Ground Zero, just to let you know, I don't appreciate your belligerent tone. I will tolerate it, but I do not like it. Next up, the CIA are not a buch of "know-nothings", they just have better things to do with there time than check the long form Offical names of countries that are submitted to them. They are more concerned with the Security of the Western World, than what some French-Canadian bureaucrat submits to their info-page.

Next, the long form Offical name of the part of the Island of Ireland that is not presently apart of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (post Dec. 6, 1921) is the Republic of Ireland. Since 1949, actually, due to the Statute of Westminster 1931, explicitly stating that it could no longer approve/refuse Dominion Legistation.

Statute of Westminster 1931 [4]

So, now follow me carefully now, the Irish Free State (1921-1937), to Eire (1937-1949), and finally the Republic of Ireland (post-1949), is the exactly chrnology of the name changes in (Independent Southern) Ireland.

From those who don't know, Eire is Irish Celtic for the English word Ireland. Please read your own Wikipedia sites to cross check undisputed information on Ireland. [5] ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I will respond to your accusation of "belligerent tone" on your user page instead of here. As far as Ireland goes, it is debateable, and I will do that on your page, not here, because it is not relevant to this discussion. Your snide remark about "French Canadian bureaucrats" are without basis, and are abusive. I think that you should withdraw that remark and apologize to French-speaking Canadians. Ground Zero | t 20:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I will retract nothing. Next up, you are bald-face wrong about the long form offical name not being the Republic of Ireland (post-1949). Before you get into complicated discussions, you should do careful research. That will prevent from making inadvertant gaping errors. ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Ireland:
Notwithstanding the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, Article 4 of the Irish constitution states: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland. [italics as in the original] And can we keep the tone civil in here, please.

Silverhelm 20:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC).

Hello Silverhelm, thank you for kind interjection. I really appreciate it. I shall attempt to keep a civil tone. May I ask ... Are you German? If so, can you add your opinion on the Holy Roman Empire (843-1806), the Confederation of the Rhine (1806-1815), the German Empire (1871-1918), the German Republics (post-1919). Your country has lived under many of the Government systems devised by Man, and I would be interested to hear your input.

Sincerely, ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have posted the same info about Ireland on you user page and look forward to you clarifying your "gaping error" remark. I asked you to withdraw the remark about it being a "French Canadian bureaucrat" who submitted the information to the CIA becuase I assume that you have no evidence thatthe bureaucrat was French Canadian. If you do "careful reseach", then perhaps you do have evidence and will provide it. Ground Zero | t 21:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw nothing. ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Anymore countries to debate? How about France, maybe its offical name is still Gaul?? Astrotrain 21:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

No. I don't give-a-fart about the formal names of the French or Irish Republics. My main historical interests are centred on the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the United States of America. But since you have raised the issue I shall answer it,

Republican Irish State: the Republic of Ireland (post-1949),

Republican French State: the French Republic (la Republique Francaise)

Note, it is not the Republic of France (la Republique du France).

How is that?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The continued and vociferous debate

I like a healthy debate myself, but not to the exclusion of all else. I watch Canada very peripherally, so anything of interest that goes on on the Talk page has been getting drowned out by the continued debate about the name of Canada.

As there are two obvious sides in this debate (ArmchairVexillologistDon and everyone else), I have a suggestion to any editors who are involved in this debate: ignore Don, as he's currently banned from editing this article. He's convincing no-one and he's unable to edit this article without ArbCom sanctions, so you can let it drop safely. When he's proved that he can engage in productive, consensus editing through the ArbCom process, only then will it be fruitful to attempt such an engagement without spiking the noise-to-signal ratio of this page into uselessness.

Saxifrage,

No, you are incorrect. HOTR has withdawn the ArbComm action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon

RFA withdrawn on 3 September 2005 Homey 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Therefore, I am currently under no restrictions whatsover.

From a complete accounting of this discussion between HOTR and I, please review my User Talkpage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

My mistake then, and I commend you on keeping your argument to the Talk page rather than engaging in an edit war in the article proper. My suggestion to the other editors stands, though, as you're all currently deadlocked and causing destruction of information rather than construction. So long as you continue to repect consensus by refraining from inserting your minority POV into the article, you are indeed under sufficient restrictions for them to safely disengage from the fruitless debate.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't just a plea for myself—that the real discussion is drowned out for someone like me is just a big red warning flag for the health of this article's editing team. It means that this article is inaccessible to anyone who isn't already thoroughly involved, and that leads to stagnation of the article and entrenchment of opinions. Do you want this article to be a stagnant battlefield, or do you want fresh perspectives to invigorate it? Each of you came to this article at some point and worked your way into the debate, bringing something unique to contribute, but imagine what this place must look like now to an editor coming here for the first time.

Don, this isn't an indictment of you, though I'm sure it sounds like one. It's merely that your actions, though honestly- and well-motivated, are causing ripples that are highly disruptive without making any useful progress. It's a principle of Wikipedia that nothing—especially not what one person considers Truth—is worth disrupting the smooth operation of the project.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

That is your principle, not mine. I shall continue to make my case for the long form offical name the Dominion of Canada, being that of this country.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly Don, no one cares what you think on this issue. Your ramblings of pointless spam will not not achieve anything. Astrotrain 21:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Saxifrage that this debate is now counter-productive. Don has been unable to convince anyone of his case, and I have spent too much time and energy trying to convince him that he is mistaken. Thirteen other editors indicated above that they are not convinced by Don's arguments. Furthermore, he is repeatedly raising points about other countries and filling this page with material that is not relevant -- pictures of the Canadian Coat of Arms and the flag of Mexico, for example, or that should not be posted here -- the text of the Sattute of Westminster, for example. I consider the case closed, and will not respond further to Don's posts. I propose that the whole discussion be moved to a special archive page, so that this can return to being the talk page for the whole Canada article, instead of this one issue. If Don wants to continue posting on the special archive page, he would be free to do so. Ground Zero | t 21:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree Astrotrain 21:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Don, you have not made one clear point re Canada at all. You have been wasting everyone's time for weeks & weeks. I will not spend any more time on this issue --JimWae 21:57, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

Ground Zero, I do not have to post only on an archived page. I can restart this discussion on your new proposed Talk: Canada page. By the way, you have blossomed into a perfect manipulative Admin type, as opposed to an even-handed, open-minded Admin type.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

GroundZero's use of the term "archived" was, I think, erroneous. I believe he meant subpage, such as Talk:Canada/Official name or somesuch. Creating that would be a useful way to separate this specific issue out from the other important and separate issues that need to be discussed without disruption in order to maintain this article. If everyone's happy to take the argument there, this would satisfy my concerns about driving off editors and drowing out other important discussion. I think a prominent link at the top of this Talk page to that subpage would be appropriate.

Alternatively, there's a perfectly good Talk page called Talk:Canada's name where this debate may be much more welcome, appropriate, and undisruptive.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes: a sub-page, or move it to Talk:Canada's name. Ground Zero | t 22:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you folks can go over to that unnessary "Canada's Name" page all you want. I am going to debate it here, (even after this page becomes Archive 6). I will just start here, on the new Talk: Canada page.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no suggestion to archive this page, and I think you misunderstand the purpose of a subpage. Subpages exist so that specific things that don't belong on the main page or that are interfering with the main page can be dealt with in a dedicated space. Keeping all discussion archived in a Talk page interferes with using the Talk page, so one use of subpages is for storing old discussion. Another use is to discuss sub-topics of a main topic. Canada's name is such a sub-topic.

What is your purpose for insisting on discussing this on the main Talk page, rather than a dedicated page?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not Archive 6, but Canada's Name 1 archive?

Zhatt, and Ground Zero, you two take "the heights of pettyness" to new Frontiers, indeed.
Canada's Official Name: Official Name 1

You could of made it just Archive 6. Oi, you guys are low.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The new archive has nothing to do with you nor Ground Zero. You are not the first to discuss the matter of Canada's official name and it would be useful to have past discussions separated for easy access, no matter the decision. I'm sorry if this comes off as rude. If others believe this is unnessisary, I can change it back and create an Archive 6. Zhatt 23:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Summary

Thesis 1

The official long name of Canada is Dominion of Canada because such is the name used in the British and Canadian legislation since 1867. Since no law was ever passed by either Britain or Canada to change this formality, the official long name of Canada still is Dominion of Canada in spite of the general perception to the contrary.

Yes. That is exactly my position. One thing though, after the Statute of Westminster 1931, the UK Parliament could not (i) review (or alter) any Dominion Legistation. However, the UK Parliament did reserve the perogative that every piece of Dominion Legislation had to be (ii). submitted and approved, by UK Parliament. In the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Dominion of New Zealand, Item (ii). was repealed in 1982, 1986, and 1988, respectively.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That's all well and good. However, a detached observer of this argument sees only that you're asserting this thesis is correct without also disproving the other two theses. They sound just as convincing as this one; why are they wrong?

A second, perhaps more important issue, is that any argument that the BNA is the authoritative document on Canada's official name must be from a tertiary (or less preferably, a secondary source), before it can avoid inadmission as original research. Even if you prove it here beyond a doubt, you will have failed to satisfy the requirements of this encyclopedia without a reference that has already proved it conclusively elsewhere.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Look, only I and Matthew Samuel Spurrell, support the position that the long form offical name the Dominion of Canada, is that of this country. I have told Ground Zero openly, that I am typing out the beginning the original text of the British North America Act 1867, and then I am going to present my own interpretation of those Constitutional Statutes. I have decided to post that on my own User Talkpage. Frankly, I am sick of this "enlightened Oligarchy" approach you folks pass off here for "due process." Go there and read if, you want (when I post the link).

Woe behove the trusting sole that argues again that the Dominion of Canada is the long form offical name of this country. You folks have all the open-mindedness of the Massachusetts Bay Colony of Salem, 1691.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thesis 2

The constitution clearly says "One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly." which rules out Dominion of Canada. The long name Dominion of Canada was used but it fell out of usage over time. Today this expression sounds totally anachronic as Canada is no longer a Dominion of the British Empire and all levels of governments in Canada (even Quebec) officially refer to federal Canada as Canada.

Thesis 3

There is nothing in Canadian legislation which ever made Dominion of Canada the official long name of the country. The question is pointless.

Did I correctly summarize? Please correct me if not. -- Mathieugp 22:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Other Proposed Names by the "Fathers of Confederation"

The leading name was the Kingdom of Canada, however it lost out at the last minute to the Dominion of Canada. Some other cited contenders for the long form offical name were,

the United Colony of Canada,

the United Provinces of Canada,

the Federated Provinces of Canada.

Worthy of note, J.S. Ewart ardently advocated the formation of the Republic of Canada, in his two volume (diatribe) known as "The Kingdom Papers."

Imperial Projects and the Republic of Canada, pp. 262-393, Ref.(2).

References:

(1). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume I., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 331, (1912-1917).

(2). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume II., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 393, (1912-1917).

(Unsigned by ArmchairVexillologistDon, moved here from Talk:Canada 20:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC).)

Poll on Canada's official name

Do you agree that the official name of "Canada" is "Canada" and not the "Dominion of Canada"?

• For more information and recent discussion/information on this topic, see Canada's name.

Yes

1. Homey 14:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Indefatigable 15:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC). However, BNA 1867 clearly states Canada is officially a dominion, so "dominion of C" (small d) is a correct description, but not the official name (due to lack of recent official use).
3. Ground Zero | t 15:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Joshuapaquin No mention in Canada Act 1982. If it were the official name, it would be in there. This is too bad, I like the sound of "Dominion of Canada"...
5. Astrotrain 17:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
6. Luigizanasi 18:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC). Having followed the debate from a relatively neutral perspective, it is clear that the arguments in favour of "Dominion of Canada", especially for the last 40 years, are pretty weak.
7. SimonP 18:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC), though polls are a bad way to decide issues of fact.
8. CJCurrie 18:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Mindmatrix 19:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
10. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-09-7 T 20:31:58 Z (1998 and 2005 Canadian Global Almanacs list the long-form name as "Canada".)
11. Zhatt 21:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
12. Samaritan 22:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC) ...but. Seeing a recent statement that it was from the Governor-General, Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister of Foreign Affairs or Minister of Canadian Heritage might convince me otherwise. But presenting an "official name" of a country that the country isn't even seen admitting to would be a bit specious. Alternatively, were a lawsuit filed arguing that Dominion of Canada was still the official name in law, that would bear mention while the issue was before the courts.
13. --rob 23:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
14. --JimWae 02:17, 2005 September 8 (UTC) There is not a shred of evidence that Canada's name (long or short) was ever officially DoC. There is evidence only that it was called DoC for a while by some
15. --DJ Clayworth 14:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Really pointless argument. "Canada,Eh?" is more common than DoC.
16.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 17:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
17. Winnermario 18:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC); I am Canadian, and let me be the first to say that you people are incredibly stupid. Have you once ever heard "Dominion of Canada" in your lives? Yeah, that's right. This argument had better be removed immediately: it's probably the funniest one I've ever stumbled upon.

    Would you consider withdrawing the words "incredibly stupid," which clearly violate the Wikipedia spirit of goodwill? HistoryBA 15:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

18. — mendel ☎ 14:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC) (and yes, Winnermario, I've heard it pretty regularly, but mostly regarding Canadian history. Canada Day was Dominion Day, after all.)
19. Shimonnyman 09:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC) If you look here the CIA World Factbook gives no name but Canada, I know people doubt the CIA's competance at times but knowing a name is not that complex for them... also Canadas official Govt. website does give results for Dominion of Canada however they are aparently all from the 1800's
20. The name is Canada and althought the BNA used the term "dominion, it is from the bible and used to mean "supreme authority" and was used to generally describe all of the initial Commonwealth countries outside the UK where the monarch reigned. "Dominion of Canada" was to specify it among the others. A long form name using "Kingdom" was suggested by the framers, but it ws thought that this would irritate the southern republic. Besides, the BNA says that the name is "Canada". Gary Joseph 11:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
21. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
22. Yes but the current mention of the "Dominion of Canada" should be retained later in the article (as it is at the moment) -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
23. Sunray 05:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC) My understanding is that the BNA Act didn't use the name "Dominion of Canada," just "Canada." While the term was used unofficially in the first half of the last century, it's use ceased after the 1950's. The Constitution Act (1982) refers only to "Canada."
24. --Marc pasquin 00:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC) I haven't seen any source brought forth that would prove that the word "dominion" is part of the official name but many that would go against.
25. --The official name of Canada has NEVER been "The Dominion of Canada". The word was used as a descriptor only, never having been incorporated into the legal framework. While we used to be a dominion in practical terms, the word never was part of the name of the country. Upon the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, we ceased to BE a dominion, and therefore the point is moot, anyway. I wasn't 100% sure, but I called a friend of mine who is a retired Judge, and now a partner in a Law firm. She confirmed that the word "Dominion" has no legal status in the name or function of Canada. (My source is Justice Nancy Penner,(Ret'd), of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. Mattwilkins 22:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
26. It's Canada. --Hollow Wilerding 02:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No

1. Draco 12:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

   Note: this is Draco's only edit in WP (so far). Mindmatrix 19:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Matthew Samuel Spurrell 7 September 2005 13:51 (UTC)
3. --Meanie 02:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
4. It should be noted that This is the official name, and as an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to use it over other illustrious whims. Someone says Dominon isnt used, it is just not frequently, there are many companies and buisnesses named after the "Dominon" Part of the name, most notable is The Toronto Dominion Bank.

Undecided

Abstain/Not Voting

1. ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC) I see no point in voting in this.

   Read Wikipedia:Consensus, Consensus decision making, and Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote. As Truth is often the victim of POV, consensus is the only useful mechanism for encyclopedia-building the project can rely on. — Saxifrage | ☎ 17:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

2. E Pluribus Anthony 03:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC) – for various reasons; my position harks that stated by Alan Rayburn, author of the (titular) book Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names (in 2001, on p. 18), et al.:

   • To my surprise, I found the title [Dominion of Canada] has not been officially dropped; it has only been suppressed, with federal, national, and central substituted as adjectives, and Canada, nation, and country used to replace the noun.

   and (on p. 19):

   • When the Canadian constitution was patriated in 1982, the entire British North America Act was incorporated into it as the Constitution Act, 1867. So the word Dominion continues to be part of the official title of this country (although its legal name is strictly Canada).

   • As the original question asked is confined to result in a judgement that only partially (and incorrectly) determines what Canada's official name may be, and not the legal name or title, the question may be invalid as is ... hence my abstention. :)

• see Talk:Canada's name – particularly, Talk:Canada's name: sources and Talk:Canada's name: sources (2) – for more sources/discussion.

---

Re-direct for Mattwilkins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canada%27s_name

The official name of Canada has NEVER been "The Dominion of Canada". The word was used as a descriptor only, never having been incorporated into the legal framework. While we used to be a dominion in practical terms, the word never was part of the name of the country. Upon the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, we ceased to BE a dominion, and therefore the point is moot, anyway. I wasn't 100% sure, but I called a friend of mine who is a retired Judge, and now a partner in a Law firm. She confirmed that the word "Dominion" has no legal status in the name or function of Canada. (My source is Justice Nancy Penner,(Ret'd), of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. Mattwilkins 22:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Canada is a Dominion. The short form name "Canada" is defined in the British North America Act 1867, in two places,

(i). the Preamble of the BNA Act 1867, (non-legally binding),

(ii). the Section II-Union., and Clause 3, (legally binding Statutes).

The British North America Act 1867 defines "the short form" name of "Canada" only, for this country.

The words

"shall form and be [one united dominion] under the name of [the Kingdom of Canada], and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute, and be [One Kingdom] under the name aforesaid"

were supplanted by the language which now appears in the constitution:

"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"

Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.

Since the explicit text (shown below) was not used,

"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [the Dominion of Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"

I am forced to conclude that

(1). Delegate Draft (Feb. 9, 1867): Name = long form name

Rank = [one united dominion], and Name = [the Kingdom of Canada],

(2). Final Draft put in BNA Act (Feb. 9, 1867): Name = short form name

Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [Canada].

(3). Un-used Explicit Text (Proposed by me): Name = long form name

Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [the Dominion of Canada].

the British North America Act 1867, only defined the short form name of "Canada", for this country. Therefore the long form offical name of this country was left UNDEFINED (on July 1, 1867).

In other words .... THE CONSTITUTION defines "Canada" as a DOMINION.

Matt you, and your retired Judge are wrong. The Constitution today still explicitly defines this country as a Dominion. We can bicker over the Name, but this country is legally defined as a Dominion. Your Judge friend obviously didn't specialize in Constituional Law.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I never said we were not a Dominion...in fact, I said we WERE a dominion until 1982. What I said (and stand by) is that the official name of this country NEVER contained the WORD "Dominion". Mattwilkins 07:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion of this topic should occur in the subpage Talk:Canada/Officialname1

Please move any further posts made on this topic to the subtopic page. Homey 14:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)