This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
---|
Discussion of Canada's official name Future TFA paragraph |
Several people have been referring to "the lede." It seems to me that they must mean " the lead". Sunray 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I now accept that using "Canada" in lieu of "Dominion of Canada" does not extend to referring to the country as a dominion as I originally thought. I do not accept it as consensus as many here may disagree. Even though a majority here wish to see the term omitted, a more extensive arguement is required to build a consensus and justify it. I was hoping to avoid getting into a long-winded debate on the issue and settling it quickly so as not to jeopardize the FA-rating of the article, and I apologize for having to write such a long edit, but it seems necessary.
The word dominion seriously compromises the neutrality of the article. Most of the reasons for excluding it [ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/dominion.htm can be found by clicking here]. I'll summarize this link, and offer more references.
To conclude, dominion is a contentious, archaic, and ambiguous term when referring to Canada in the lead and adds nothing to the clarity and quality of the article. It overweights a marginal monarchist POV. Eight people here (so far) agree that it is contentious and should be removed. Given its prominence in the lead, there is good grounds to say that it makes the neutrality of the article disputed. An editor could reasonably tag this article as such. That would be a shame because many here (including myself) have put considerable effort into adding to the body of the article and condensing it without any contentious editing. It would be a shame to have all this work undone by a small group of editors who have added nothing but edits to the lead and reams of text on the talk page. As such, I have changed the word federal dominion to federation. If it is changed back, I will consider asking an administrator if this longstanding debate puts this article's neutrality in jeopardy. Intellectual honesty demands it. I also suggest considering moving any further discussion of this subject to the dominion article, as was done with the debate concerning Canada's name. -- Soulscanner 08:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Soulscanner 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
We now have several concurrent polls, discussions, and whatnot surrounding one sentence in the lead. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I also think that absent a strong consensus in favour of using dominion in the lead, we need to leave it out of there. Given the controversy over the term, it should be used only where the appropriate context can be provided. That said, I'm not wild about some of the other options. So I took a stab at revising the whole second paragraph:
This draft will probaby satisfy no one completely, as I've managed to avoid using both dominion and federation. That was sort of the point. It's a compromise that states the one thing that - I think - we can all agree on: on July 1, 1867, a country named Canada was formed. - Eron Talk 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The above lead sounds good to me. Thanks again for the proposal. Regards, -- Jeff3000 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It sounds good to me too. It avoids contentious terminology. It's unfortunate that the word Confederation cannot be used, as it refers unambiguously to the unification of existing British North American dominions/colonies/posessions into a federation. However, it eliminates the contentious, ambiguous, archaic, vague, colonial and monarchist term "dominion". I can live with this. -- Soulscanner 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see Confederation added back in as follows:
I'd also request changing "independence" to "autonomy" as follows:
I am genuinely trying to improve this article. I'd appreciate it if someone could explain how my minor tweaks to some of the other text in the second paragraph of the lead, which I have explained above, have resulted in an "inferior proposal." Seriously, I can't see it; I'd like some specific feedback. - Eron Talk 17:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Canada is a Dominion (see Clause 3). The long-form name of the Dominion of Canada is unfortunately disputed here by many Wikipedians.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Quizimodo. I thank you very much for your efforts to include the term Federal Dominion in the second paragraph. I personally support the idea. However, the majority of Wikipedians are "ill-informed" on this issue, and unfortunately Wikipedia is run by the majority vote of the "ignorant-mob".
Best wishes eh, ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
'Ill-informed?Ignorant mob?' Nice. All hail your enlightening influence. Leaving that aside, I applaud the originality of 'Federal Dominion', but is it realy necessary to create a new term? It is not a matter of proving that it should be excluded, but that proving that it should be included. And that goes for 'Confederation' too, or whatever term: kingdom, empire, viceroyalty, grand poobarate, whatever. How does the state refer to itself? Going back into the mists of time to ponder acts of Parliament and pronouncements of the English government doesn't help, because we can argue for ages on legalty niceties and historical nuances. How does the state here and now refer to itsself. If it uses 'dominion', that needs to be cited. If it uses 'confederation', that needs to be cited. If it uses 'federal dominion', it needs to be cited. Let's not get bogged down in the mire of history- let's stick to the here and now.-- Gazzster 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I stand by what I have stated. 'Dominion', in the context of a former dependency of Great Britain, is a historical term (in a broader context, it obviously has a broader meaning). The titles you have stated (without references) are no longer used. Certainly not in the case of Australia (I am an Australian) where 'Dominion of Australia' has never been used. The
Constitution of Australia does not refer to a 'Federal Dominion' but to a 'Federal Commonwealth', so I do not know where you got that term from. And it should be noted that 'Federal Commonwealth' does not form part of Australia's title. The full title of my nation is 'Commonwealth of Australia' and always has been. The correct term, if you need to use one, is '
Commonwealth realm'. This term is not however analagous to 'dominion', for CR denotes a fully independent nation, as opposed to an autonomous dominion. However Australia never refers to itself as a Commonwealth realm, only as the 'Commonwealth of Australia'. The last time the British government used the term dominion to refer to one of the now Commonwealth realms was in 1948. I challenge you to demonstrate where the Commonwealth realms continue to use the term dominion to describe themselves. As to the title of Canada in specie I cannot say: I am not an expert about Canadian matters. Perhaps they do continue to use dominion, in which case, it would be in a very specific context. May I point out that you seem to have ignored one of my most pertinent points: dominion is a nebulous term is a particular historical context. The context was the British Empire. The BE no longer exists. Therefore, 'dominion' is no longer a valid term. I repeat what I have observed before: some editors in Wikipedia (I am not referring in particular to you, please understand Armchair) seem to assert, across a wide range of articles, that 'dominion' is still a valid term to categorise former dependencies of Great Britain. This is patently false.--
Gazzster
11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought the main issue under discussion here was whether or not to include dominion in the lede/lead, not whether or not is was EVER appropriate to apply the term "dominion" to Canada. Requesting a source to support its being contentious in the lede is silly - the only source that could ever be applicable is the talk page. The discussion needs to focus on one issue at a time -- JimWae 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
From the government of Canada's website: "Canada’s Capital straddles the border of two provinces (Ontario and Quebec), contains two major cities (Ottawa and Gatineau) and has two official languages (English and French)." ( http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16297-24515-25108&lang=1)
So, the government of Canada says that "Canada's Capital" is the NCR, but this article says that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. Should that be changed?
On one hand, the constitution says that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. On the other hand, it's hard to deny that the government buildings now span both Ottawa and Gatineau. (The constitution was written back when Ottawa was a tiny industrial town.)
Perhaps Ottawa is the de jure capital while Ottawa-Gatineau is the de facto capital?
What do you think? Personally, I think the article should be changed to say that the capital is the NCR, but I wouldn't mind seeing if we can reach a consensus here first. Scientivore 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This issue of using the word Dominion has been debated before, and a preamble referring editors to the article " Canada's name" exists precisely to avoid this kind of contentious debate. The referenced article and the etymology document the evolution of this word, and provide a longstanding consensus.
I recommend a similar tack be taken here, as the issue is so similar that it would be splitting hairs to say that it was different. Issues regarding whether Canada was a Dominion in 1867 or remains one should be discussed at the Dominion page. Once a consensus definition is clarified there, we can decide whether the terminology is clear enough to use in the lead here. -- Soulscanner 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect. In 1867 the term Dominion did not refer to any colony within the British Empire.
Colony: a possession with or without a locally elected assembly.
Province: a possession with a locally elected assembly. This is known as a Representative Government.
Self-Governing Province: a possession with a locally elected assembly that the Governor, by convension, is not supposed to over-rule (also known as a Self-Governing Colony). This known is as a Responsible Government (i.e, the Governor is responsible to the Elected Assembly).
Dominion: (a short form for a Self-Governing Dominion) a country in Personal Union with the UK.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Archaic ... which meaning.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archaic
Next, you are utterly incorrect again. The term Dominion does not mean colonial status with limited self-government (that would be a Self-Governing Colony). Dominion does not equate to a Self-Governing Colony. Lastly what the hell happenned in 1948 to formally include the term Realm?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Good Grief, Charlie Brown. What utter circular non-sensical rubbish. The Dominion of Canada (or just "Canada") was not created as a resurrected Dominion of New England, nor a Federation of the West Indies, Federation of Malaya, or Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Get a grip eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we have some good faith here? I do not see how accusations that one side or the other is attempting to promote monarchism or republicanism are helping to resolve this. - Eron Talk 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
How does the term Dominion comprimise the neutrality of the Canada article?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
An arguement can be readily presented to demonstrate that Canada from 1867-1982 was a Dominion. Another arguement can be readily presented to demonstrate that after the Canada Act 1982, that Canada is still a Dominion (i.e., post 1982).
However, such things will simply be dismissed by the majority of Wikipedians here. They will scream original research, or exhibit willful blindness and simply not see reason.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gazzster. Thank you for kindly asking me to make my analysis/arguements on Canada as being a Dominion. I shall do this to the best of my ability indeed.
One thing that may be of interest to you as an Australian, is that in the original Australian Constitution of 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was explicitly declared in the text as a Federal Commonwealth (this was taken later to mean a Federal Dominion).
I do know that the proposed name of the Dominion of Australia was debated and formally rejected. Do you know why? I'm asking you as an Australian, as me-self as an English-Canadian am not certain why this occurred eh.
Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your courtesy. About 'Federal Commonwealth': if you look at our discourse above, it was actually myself who pointed out to you that this term is used in the Constitution, rather than 'Federal Dominion', which you were asserting. I do not know what you mean by 'taken later to mean a Federal Dominion.' By whom, and when? I have never heard of the phrase. Give me a reference.I have not heard of any debate to call Australia the 'Dominion of Australia'. If there was it must have been during the constitutional conventions before federation in 1901, for the Constitution itself never uses the phrase. I take it that you are retracting the idea that Dominion of Australia is a title. Thanks for your honesty. As for why such a name might have been rejected, I cannot say. I can only suggest that 'dominion' implied a notion of subservience to Great Britain, which, even in 1901, was considered opprobrious to most Australians, in particular to the Irish who formed a good part of the population.Cheers. -- Gazzster 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
N.B. Main points of this edit have been placed as requested in lead in article Canada's name. -- Soulscanner 11:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Soulscanner 10:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk • contribs)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)
I think we need a poll to clarify where we all stand.
All here agree that Canada became a federation in 1867 and that it essential for understanding what Canada currently is. We are in disagreement as to whether this is the case with "federal dominion". Indeed, the only source that supports use of this word is a website from the Commonwealth Office that has no author or references listed; it is also hosted by an organization dedicated to promoting the British Monarch. It is not an academic source.
Is "federation" (or "federal state") a better word than "federal dominion" for describing Canada in the lead? -- Soulscanner 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not particularly sure where this will go, but I felt the debate over the use of this single word had become far too convoluted, whether purposefully or accidentally, for anyone to keep a grasp on the actual issue. Thus, I thought I'd attempt to sum up the arguments. As I'm more familiar with the pro-dominion arguments, it seems obvious the pro arguments here are more hashed out. Please feel free to add/edit as appropriate. -- G2bambino 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So that we're clear, the debate focuses on the use of the word " dominion" in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of this article:
Arguments in favour of retention of "dominion":
Arguments against retention of "dominion":
Here's a short summary of response. References can be found on my postings above and below. Thank you. -- Soulscanner 10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I support every one of G2's responses, so needn't comment further. Quizimodo 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
To go point by point about the reasons for inclusion of the term dominion, then:
Canadian Oxford Dictionary, entry for 'Canada' (p. 220): Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867... Canadian Encyclopedia: In 1914 the king declared war on behalf of the entire empire, but the Dominions (a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members) decided... Constitution Act, 1867: Preamble: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown...; II Union: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada... CIA World Factbook, entry for Canada: Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867... The one main cite provided in argument against its use is a personal website of a 22 year old university student, and thus does not conform to WP:V."
And, if one looks at the list above, none of the reasons cited for inclusion amount to much more than a) denial of any dispute about meaning; b) claims to clarity; c) reliance upon the term for clarity; d) use in other sources. All of these reasons (it seems to me) are disputed: a) the meaning is not clear, because dispute exists; b) see (a); if the term is not clear, using it again does not make it more clear; and, d) if the sources cited do not clarify, repeating the use of an unclear term does not add to clarity. I grant (as I have before) that the use of an unclear term with longwinded explanations is fine - just not in the lead.
So: why does it need to be in the lead apart from the reasons cited?-- Gregalton 09:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gregalton.
Prime Minister Wilfred Lauier
He specifically coined the legal term "Self-Governing Dominion" (its short form being "Dominion") at the British Commonwealth Conference of 1907 (I own the facsmile copy of the minutes of the 1907 conference). Laurier knew exactly what Dominion meant. The comments that you quote are refering to the wish for more offical power being transfered from London.
Prime Minister Robrt Borden
He was an ardent advocate of the British Empire becoming a Federal Empire. He wanted all British Possessions to become one big "super-country". An idealistic dreamer he was indeed. The "Nation that is not a Nation" comment most like refered to the 1917 Imperial War Cabinet arguements.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney
Mulroney? You actually quoted Mulroney. Are you daft? He was bar-none, the most hated PM in Canadian history. It was no small feat to achieve but ... Everyone disagree with what he said "Canada was".
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gazzster, I am very sorry and apologise.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gregalton. Point-in-fact, I did not criticise PM Sir Wilfred Laurier, nor PM Sir Robert Borden.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend that the responders to my statement above begin countering my referenced claims instead of repeating items that I've already addressed in my referenced posts above.
Normally, we do not need to overly picky about scholarly versus institutional sources. However, at this point in the debate we are going to have insist on it. This debate has gone on too long and we need to absolutely strict about accepting only the most legitimate scholarly sources for the lead. It is obvious what the common thread is.
These three sources have been cited, ostensibly in support of calling Canada a federal dominion at the time of Confederation. None of these really support this nomenclature.
However, only the first source qualifies as a valid scholarly source in the very strict sense required here. This source appears in the Canadian Encyclopedia, and is written by a legitimate Canadian historian, Norman Hillmer of Carleton University. It is hence an acceptable source here.
The second source appears as a caption on a map of the Atlas of Canada produced by Natural Resources Canada. I cannot find the author of this document, so we cannot be sure of its source. This map caption also refers to Canada as a confederation, which appears to be mistaken. Hence it appears that some academic rigor is missing here, making it of dubious quality in comparison to the Encyclopedia article.
The third source appears at the Commonwealth Commission's history page. There is no author attributed to this source. This publisher 's mission is to promote the British Commonwealth and Monarchy, so it's objectivity is dubious. It's purpose is not to document history in a scholarly fashion, but to paint the British Empire and Commonwealth in as good a light as possible. In so doing, it publishes inaccuracies.
Most troubling is the outright falsehood that the intention of the British authorities or even the Fathers of Confederation was to establish a more autonomous status for the British dominion (dominion meant colony in the nomenclature of the day). It is clearly established by explicit quotes on the article Canada's name that the intentions of choosing Dominion were: a) upholding Queen Victoria's dominion or supremacy over the Canadian territory; b) British colonial officials thought that the preferred title, "Kingdom" would offend republican sensibilities in the U.S.; c) The Premier of New Brunswick liked the biblical overtones.
No primary source is quoted that ever says that anyone in Britain granted more autonomy or that the father's of Confederation even wanted it. The quotes say quite the opposite. And the actions of Britain following confederation showed the opposite, as documented above. Britain passed laws that explicitly restricted the autonomy of colonies following Confederation, whether they were called "Dominions" or not. No incident in actions or in words recognized more autonomy for Canada or the "dominions" until 1917, and this wasn't formalized until 1919 (see sources from Frank Scott above).
Hence only Hillmer's article serves as an authoritative source. The Atlas of Canada serves as an acceptable compliment to the article. The anonymous article by the former British Colonial Office is best regarded as institutional propaganda, similar to what one might expect from the Turkish government on the Armenian genocide. It should be removed as a reference unless it is explicitly used to identify the position of the Commonwealth Commission. -- Soulscanner 10:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
With CONFEDERATION in 1867, Canada became the first federation in the British Empire ...
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
In 1867, the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are united in a federal state, the Dominion of Canada....
The British North America Act of 1867 brought together four British colonies ... in one federal Dominion under the name of Canada.
Soulscanner wrote,
I must ask here ... Soulscanner is your first language English?
a). Do you understand that "Dominion" is different than "dominion"?
b). Yes it would offend the USA.
c). Ummm err ... So what?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this whole 'is Canada a dominion' thing can be solved quite simply: 1) We have to consider whether Canada here and now considers itself to be a dominion. And here we need to refer to parliamentary legislation. If Canada was constituted as a 'dominion', has that constitution been amended by legislation? If so, please cite that legislation. 2 Define what is meant by 'dominion'; this is a primary cause of dispute. Is 'Dominion' in a context proper to Canada alone, with a meaning of its own, or does the term refer to a broader context, ie., an autonomous constituent of the British Empire.I would strongly suggest that it cannot refer to the latter, for the BE no longer exists.
So, has the initial title of Canada been changed by legislation, and is 'dominion' proper to Canada?-- Gazzster 08:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) The initial title, though disused, has not been changed by legislation. Numerous reputable sources indicate the legitimacy and currency of 'dominion' as Canada's title; e.g.,
Quizimodo 16:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(2) The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines 'dominion' as (2004, p. 443, sense 3):
Quizimodo 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can cite that dominion is still part of Canada's title, then of course the article can remain edited to reflect that. As to the second part, a dictionary is not a political and cultural authority. In fact, it is weak argument to refer to a dictionary at all. The Commonwealth in fact does not have any 'self-governing territories',as if the Commonwealth were an umbrella authority. The Commonwealth is made up of 'self-governing territories', several of which are republics. These could hardly be called 'dominions'. And as the discourse between Armchair and myself revealed, the Commonwealth of Australia (and other Commonwealth realms) no longer use the title 'dominion', if ever they did (and in the case of Australia, it most certainly did not) . The British government stopped using the term in 1948. So here I believe you are on shakier ground. --
Gazzster
10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You haven't really been following what I'm saying. If you can cite that dominion is still part of Canada's title, then of course the article can remain edited to reflect that. So if you can, no arguments. As to the second point, an editor has yet to prove that the term 'dominion', taken in a wider context, is still used to describe the Commonwealth realms. -- Gazzster 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In any modern encyclopedia, atlas, or other reference book, Canada is simply reffered to as "Canada". The title "Dominion of Canada" was dropped decades ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The CIA article is a perfect example of why use of dominion in a short summary about Canada is a problem. The CIA article is silent on the changes that have occurred since 1867, and one can be forgiven for getting the impression from that CIA article that Canada is still a dominion subject to the UK. As for our article, just mentioning dominion in the lede raises the question whether Canada is still a dominion - and our lede is also completely silent on that (and any lede must be so on that issue, since it is too complex an issue for a lede). Canada is clearly NOT a dominion in the same sense that it was one in 1867, for it is no longer a dominion of the UK. Canada is clearly now a realm & the monarch's title no longer claims Canada as one of her dominions. IF Canada is also still a dominion, it is one in title only (mostly, in my opinion, since nobody has tackled officially changing it). Including dominion in the lede is not INaccurate with regard to past history, but its information value for a reader unfamilar with the term does not justify including it. Canada's actual status within the UK did not change with Confederation - on 2 July 1867 it was still a mostly self-governing colony of the UK - except the term colony was substituted out. What changed in 1867 was that 3 BNA colonies united into a federation of 4 provinces, with the expectation of more provinces to come. The only reason I can think of that people want to include dominion in the lede is that they like the term for one reason or another. Personally, I do not like using terms about Canada that would suggest (rightly or wrongly) to many people that it is not an independent country. But encyclopedia should not be about personal likes & dislikes, they should be about being informative & not needlessly confusing the reader.-- JimWae 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As I've said before, I'm not an expert on Canadian affairs, so I will let other minds discuss how the word 'dominion' is used in Canadian history. I can however speak to how 'dominion' was used to describe former dependencies of Great Britain which are now either Commonwealth realms or republics. In my opinion JimWae drops peals of wisdom when he says:
As for our article, just mentioning dominion in the lede raises the question whether Canada is still a dominion - and our lede is also completely silent on that (and any lede must be so on that issue, since it is too complex an issue for a lede). Canada is clearly NOT a dominion in the same sense that it was one in 1867, for it is no longer a dominion of the UK. Canada is clearly now a realm & the monarch's title no longer claims Canada as one of her dominions. IF Canada is also still a dominion, it is one in title only (mostly, in my opinion, since nobody has tackled officially changing it). Including dominion in the lede is not INaccurate with regard to past history, but its information value for a reader unfamilar with the term does not justify including it.
Here JimWae touches on a very pertinent point, one which I have been trying to express. Here it is more eloquently put. From what I have been gleaning from the contribution of editors, Canada was founded as a dominion, yes. But what is meant by dominion? Was it a term placed in a specific context for Canada in 1867? If not, does it have the same meaning as the term 'dominion' (which was never constitutionally defined by Great Britain or its colonies) used some 30 or so years later to describe autonomous constituents of the British Empire? Here lies the ambiguity. If Canada was constituted a 'dominion' (as it seems to have been), does it remain so, especially as 'dominion' is almost always interpreted as a paternalistic, outdated, colonial term? The former dominions of Australia and New Zealand do not use the term (if ever they did officially). Can we say that Canada also rightly objects to the term? To sum up: yes, Canada was constituted a 'dominion', but even though no legislation may have overturned the title (I don't know) can we still call Canada a dominion?
Can I also add that I am enjoying this discussion. Only in Wikipedia could we get down to such nuances and depths. Great stuff!-- Gazzster 08:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
::Dominion title should not be in the lead paragraph, it should be in the historical sections though IMHO. I'm no constitutional expert, but I do recall in my school history classes of long ago, Canada chose the title Dominion of Canada in 1867. At some point in the 20th century, the Dominon title was dropped (how & when exactly? I don't know). How the Dominion vs dominion got started? Is (to me) a larger mystery and headache. Ya know, its pointed out to me once, that Canada (today) is actually a kingdom (but that's another headache).
GoodDay
15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Quizmodo, I have to acknowledge that you went to the trouble to find references to Australia as a dominion, and I might even have to acknowledge that some individuals or organisations may still refer to the Commonwealth as such. Certainly the author of the review of the book referred to [16]]. But the second reference [17]) is talking about Australia in the past. And before 1953, true, it was called a domininion. It was however never part of its official title ( Constitution of Australia). I would still argue that 'dominion' is not used in reference to Australia in any meaningful way nowadays. You are right, New Zealand called itself a dominion after being granted that status by Britain. However, in 1946 the prime minister of NZ gave instructions to his government to drop the term from official documentation ( Dominion of New Zealand).This was done because even in 1946, the term carried paternalistic overtones. From the accession of Elizabeth II the term was dropped entirely for the former dependencies of Great Britain. The term 'realm' was used instead and continues to be used. This is an example of a term becoming obsolete and irrelevant, not by abrogation, but by disuse. Some of us are simply suggesting that this may be the case for Canada. If I may suggest, without intending to be personal, that to say a country remains a dominion, simply because the document of constitution has not been amended or abolished, is excessively legalistic. Surely this encyclopedia does not merely reflect the points and dots of the law, but also the common understanding of minds and hearts concerning a particular topic. The present status of Canada (and other former dominions) has to be taken in historical context. I might refer you to an article of the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (27,2): The Strange Death of Dominion Status, by D. Macintyre. This work is available online. If this academic is to be credited, the title alone gives you an indication of the present state of the term 'dominion.' In this article, Macintyre explains that 'dominion' was a loosely defined term to describe states between a colony and an independent state. It was never intended to have permanent status. Those countries were given dominion status precisely because it was intended they be sovereign states in the future. Now the former dominions are independent realms, and so, the word no longer has any meaning for them. As to your points about the word 'confederation': that does not concern me. I don't know enough about that. I am concerned about how the word dominion is treated.-- Gazzster 04:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
fools rush in where angels fear to tread. The Government of Canada says that 'Dominion of Canada' is the title of the country: "1. The British North America Act, 1867 (Constitution Act, 1867) that created Canada gave it an official title. What was it? a) Dominion of Canada. ... It remains our country's official title." [ [18]] The British North America Act, 1867, does not use the word title: it says Canada "shall be One Dominion under the Name of Canada" and uses the word 'name' and the name 'Canada' throughout. [ [19]] So it seems Canada has a title and a name, and the two are not exactly the same thing. Richardson mcphillips1 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
'Fool'? If you're going to be insulting you don't merit a reply.-- Gazzster 04:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely apologise if that was your intention, Richardson. In which case, you do deserve a reply. There is no argument that Canada was constituted a dominion. And, I believe, there is no argument that the relevant acts still contain the phrase 'Dominion of Canada'. So the lead can certainly say, Canada was constituted a dominion. The question some of us are raising is, what is Canada now? And we touch on interesting points here. Is 'Dominion' a term created specifically for Canada? In this case, 'Dominion' has a meaning proper to Canada alone, and there is really no probolem in continuing to state that Canada is a 'dominion'. But might 'dominion' have the same meaning as 'dominion' used to describe autonomous states within the British Empire; Australia, New Zealand, South Africa , Newfoundland, etc. In the latter case, 'dominion' is no longer a valid term. It only had validity in the context of the British Empire. The Empire no longer exists.The term is no longer used, replaced by 'realm' in 1953. Some of us are simply asking: even though the term has not been repealed, does it still apply? Does a word on a piece of paper 140 years necessarily remain valid for all time? Does the Canadian government still call itself a Dominion? It is reasonable to ask this question.-- Gazzster 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I did mean I was the fool: I used that figure of speech because clearly a lot of intelligent people have thought about these issues in great detail, and I hesitated to join the fray. I included two quotations, one from the Gov't of Canada, and a quotation from the BNA Act 1867, to which the Gov't of Canada referred. The quotation from the Gov't of Canada answers your reasonable question: the Canadian government titles Canada as 'Dominion of Canada'. "It remains our country's official title". It seems to me that any interpretation of what 'dominion' means today is moot, or perhaps, interesting but not ad rem. I included the second reference to indicate that it seems to me that some of the debate and/or confusion might be over an apparent distinction between title and name. I start with the primary texts, which should have pride of place before any forays - important as they are - into what the words really mean today. Richardson mcphillips1 01:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your balanced analysis. Yes, I am convinced now that the title 'Dominion of Canada' remains.-- Gazzster 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
JimWae, you know very little about Constitutional Law, Legal Convensions , or Order-of-Precedence (i.e., "He who proceeds first"). The presence of the phrase Dominion of Canada in the British North America Act 1871 (i.e., the first ammendment of the original BNA Act 1867) constitutes the quoting of the country's long-form name. A long-form name is of higher legal rank (i.e., higher in Order-of-Precedence) than a short-form name. Thus, by legal convension the writing of the phrase Dominion of Canada explicity in British North America Act 1871 constitutes the implicit assignment of the Dominion of Canada in the original British North America Act 1867.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And come to that, 'Dominion of Canada' does not appear in the 1982 Act either. But the Canada Heritage site sponsored by the government and cited by Richardson does say 'Dominion of Canada' remains the title of Canada. So where does that leave us?--
Gazzster
11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It is nice to see more people than the last time I saw this argument agree that Canada's title still is "Dominion", however, it is not really the issue that needs consensus to unlock this page. What is at question is whether or not to use the word in the opening paragraphs. I, and many others, believe it is not useful to use the word in what should be a clear and concise introduction to the subject of Canada. The meaning, connotation, and significance has been debated for a century and its use is not appropriate in the introduction. It can be, and is, mentioned briefly in the body of the article and should be covered in detail in the articles on Canada's name and Dominion. It adds no value to the lead and, in fact, detracts from it. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hm, the United States Department of State does not agree, stating that Canada has no long-form name. It appears that the matter may not be as open and shut as some editors think it is. - Eron Talk 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, after this latest exchange, I have to reserve my judgement again; the Government's position is not clear. The word 'dominion' certainly does not appear in the 1982 Act. Can anyone tell us for a fact: does the 1982 Act abrogate or simply amend the 1867 Act? I would suggest that the only authority which can state the long form name of Canada is the government of Canada itself. We may have to pay an online visit to the Governor-General's website or the PM's website.-- Gazzster 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia entry for 'Canada' lists GDP per capita at $32,614 and adjusted for PPP at $35,600. The Wikipedia entry for 'List of Canadian provinces and territorries by gross domestic product' lists different figures. The figure here at PPP is $44,118. This is a huge difference. Which is correct? Perhaps, neither? I can see the nominal figure for Canada being $44,118 because of the rapid increase in the value of the Canadian dollar and the figure at PPP being perhaps around $40,000.
The current listings just don't make sense though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.40.223 ( talk) 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
An attempt to satisfy the monarchists here who wish to see the word "dominion" in the lead while not muddying up the clarity and simplicity of the introductory paragraphs.
I believe it is a mistake to call Canada a dominion in the lead since it is difficult to define and controversial. However, it is nearly incontrovertible that it was entitled a Dominion in 1867, whatever, if anything, that meant. Following that logic, I have drafted the following final two sentences of paragraph two:
In 1867, Confederation united three colonies in federation to form the Dominion of Canada and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America. The 1867 Act granted general powers of self-government and increasing independence was achieved in successive Acts, culminating in the Canada Act 1982, which severed the final vestige of dependence on the British parliament. And remove the words "A federation" from the beginning of paragraph three.
DoubleBlue ( Talk) 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Semi-autonomous? You are missing the point completely. Please stop trying to judge the independence of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, Irish Free State, India, and Pakistan from a Republican point-of-view, for that is what you are doing.
The Dominions are (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) or were (Newfoundland, South Africa, Irish Free State, India, and Pakistan) independent countries that chose to have as their figure Head-of-State the Constitutional-Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..
The "independence" angle is constantly harped on by people that don't like the fact that we are a Dominion. That is what we were founded as in 1867, and that is what we are today ... a Dominion!
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying this? Especially as you have already conceded that Australia has never called itself a dominion. The British government does not use the term dominion to refer to former dependencies of Great Britain. Why do you continue to insist that they remain dominions. If they are called anything it is Commonwealth realm. If Canada is still a dominion (I don't know), fine. But don't try to paint other Commonwealth realms with the same brush. Really, insisting on 'dominion' is not only wrong but insulting. And we do not 'choose' our head of state: she is a hereditary monarch, and the peoples of her realms have no say as to whether her son will succeed or not.-- Gazzster 11:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello DoubleBlue. The British North America Act 1867 states explictly in Clause 3 that Canada is a Dominion. The BNA Act 1867 is contained (the legal term is consolidated into) within the Canada Act 1982 and has NOT been repealed. Thus Clause 3 of the BNA Act 1867 is still in force and Canada is still a Dominion (back in 1867 and today in 2007).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello DoubleBlue. LOL! Thanks eh.
Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I support this version,
I am having trouble understanding peoples objections to the Dominion word. It is a historical fact ... why do people hate it so much and want to suppress it?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I am thoroughly fed-up with this non-sense. Canada was founded in 1867 as a Dominion. Then the Canada Act 1982 came along, and Canada is still a Dominion. I wash my hands of this whole debate. This talk page epitomises what I hate about Wikipedia ... consensus of the Ignorant-Mob running amok.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
And there speaks the voice of enquiry and understanding. Good on ya, GoodDay.-- Gazzster 04:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so after a couple of weeks without discussion, have we come to the conclusion that the following wording is acceptable for the fourth sentence of the second paragraph?:
Yes. Referring to 'dominion' in quotations makes it clear that the term is to be understood in a context specific to Canada in 1867. Small syntactical objection: it is unecessary to put 'under the United Kingdom' in parentheses. And yes, the whole monarchist vs republican thing is irrelevant, and I don't see any evidence of that in our exchanges.-- Gazzster 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
True, we could spend too long on this and perhaps already have. But surely we're touching on important issues. And one single word can carry great weight. I disagree that our discussion reflects 'personal hang-ups' on the part of certain editors. On the contrary, I have seen sound argument that suggests that the use of the word 'dominion' in this article (and others) needs defining. I notice that (in my opinion) some editors have an altogether outdated understanding of the term. We could of course raise the dread word 'arbitration' and wait for the collective groan. But I think it's best to avoid arb if we can.-- Gazzster 15:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
(In response to G2Bambino): I would have thought that what is a 'superior counter argument' is itself based on a personal assessment. And personal judgements are the very thing you are objecting to. And 'an equally valid counter-point' supposes, does it not, that the original objection is 'valid'? So where's the personal argument there? The 'controversey' is 'purely manufactured'? On the contrary, I have seen intelligent reasoned argument. Intelligent reasonable editors do not produce argument ex nihilo. Supporting what Eron has said, if anyone is resorting to subjective argument, it appears to be you.-- Gazzster 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, Armchair. Personal attack is the lowest form of argument. In fact, it is a poor substitute for good argument. It doesn't do your case any good at all. JimWae and 'people like JimWae' used reasoned intelligent, respectful arguments to illustrate his points. You, on the other hand appear to find it difficult to respond in like manner. In fact, 'dominion' is not pretty clear at all. Dominion is a country within the British Commonwealth that is a Constitutional-Monarchy, in Personal Union with the UK. 1) There is no such thing as the 'British Commonwealth', it is simply 'the Commonwealth', and the UK is not its head; 2) the constitutional monarchies in personal union under Elizabeth II are now called realms, and have been since her accession; 3)the UK government and Buckingham Palace have ceased using the term dominion since 1948, as myself and others have pointed out repeatedly. If there's a statement which appears 'ignorant', it's this one.-- Gazzster 04:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Why you are dividing the United Kingdom and going on about unitary kingdoms (ignoring, by the way, the points I made) I cannot tell. But here is the title of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom: ' N., by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen (etc)'. The Kingdoms of Scotland and England no longer exist. The Crowns are united into a single crown. That is why it is a 'United' Kingdom. After the invasion of Wales that country was never actually ruled by a Prince. The sovereign of Wales was the King of England; the title Prince of Wales is purely titular.--
Gazzster
01:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yaa, I know. The Dominion of Canada is a very good long-form name of this country. I have always liked it. However, I am an English-Canadian (i.e., and English-Speaking Canadian). The objection to this name primarily comes from the French-Canadians (i.e., French-Speaking Canadians) and the Roman-Catholic Irish Republicans. They collectively hate the term Dominion.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Eron.
English-Canadians typically do not have a problem with the term Dominion.
French-Canadians typically do have a problem with the term Dominion.
The Roman Catholic Irish are usually Republican in their sentiment.
What specifically do you have a "problem with" in these observations?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What is a 'typical Canadian'? A 'typical French Canadian'? I think the stereotype may exist in your own imagination. And why do you suppose that contributors on this page who diagree with your arguments must be 'typical French Canadians' or 'Roman Catholic Irish'? Because they disagree with what you believe is the 'English Canadian' perspective? What sort of circular logic is that? What kind of 'observations' are these? And what kind of wholesale pigeon-holing is that?-- Gazzster 04:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
My problem with your observations, Don, is that you are presuming to know someone's political views based on their ethnicity, and their ethnicity based on their political views. There are words for that sort of thinking. You also seem to be fixated on some image of Canada that has little in common with the country as it exists today. While the old French-English divide is still present, the Catholic-Protestant divide is irrelevant. And you seem unaware of the many Canadians who don't fit into your neat categories. What it the Sikh perspective on Dominion? Are Haitian-Canadians monarchist, or republican? What do the Jews think of all this? It's all irrelevant. - Eron Talk 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello GoodDay. What category to you "fit" into? Well what is your first language? What is the language that you think in? The primary organising principle in Canada is linguistic (unfortunately). If your first language is English, then you are an English-Speaking Canadian (i.e., an English-Canadian) and you are of English-Canada. If your first language is French, then you are an French-Speaking Canadian (i.e., an French-Canadian) and you are of French-Canada (additionally the Native-Peoples are divided between these "Two-Solitudes" ).
Take care, and best wishes eh ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Okkie-Dokkie ... loud and clear :)
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So Don, I guess you would agree that this controversy has not been purely manufactured by the editors of this page? --
JimWae
22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
---|
Discussion of Canada's official name Future TFA paragraph |
Several people have been referring to "the lede." It seems to me that they must mean " the lead". Sunray 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I now accept that using "Canada" in lieu of "Dominion of Canada" does not extend to referring to the country as a dominion as I originally thought. I do not accept it as consensus as many here may disagree. Even though a majority here wish to see the term omitted, a more extensive arguement is required to build a consensus and justify it. I was hoping to avoid getting into a long-winded debate on the issue and settling it quickly so as not to jeopardize the FA-rating of the article, and I apologize for having to write such a long edit, but it seems necessary.
The word dominion seriously compromises the neutrality of the article. Most of the reasons for excluding it [ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/dominion.htm can be found by clicking here]. I'll summarize this link, and offer more references.
To conclude, dominion is a contentious, archaic, and ambiguous term when referring to Canada in the lead and adds nothing to the clarity and quality of the article. It overweights a marginal monarchist POV. Eight people here (so far) agree that it is contentious and should be removed. Given its prominence in the lead, there is good grounds to say that it makes the neutrality of the article disputed. An editor could reasonably tag this article as such. That would be a shame because many here (including myself) have put considerable effort into adding to the body of the article and condensing it without any contentious editing. It would be a shame to have all this work undone by a small group of editors who have added nothing but edits to the lead and reams of text on the talk page. As such, I have changed the word federal dominion to federation. If it is changed back, I will consider asking an administrator if this longstanding debate puts this article's neutrality in jeopardy. Intellectual honesty demands it. I also suggest considering moving any further discussion of this subject to the dominion article, as was done with the debate concerning Canada's name. -- Soulscanner 08:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Soulscanner 18:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
We now have several concurrent polls, discussions, and whatnot surrounding one sentence in the lead. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I also think that absent a strong consensus in favour of using dominion in the lead, we need to leave it out of there. Given the controversy over the term, it should be used only where the appropriate context can be provided. That said, I'm not wild about some of the other options. So I took a stab at revising the whole second paragraph:
This draft will probaby satisfy no one completely, as I've managed to avoid using both dominion and federation. That was sort of the point. It's a compromise that states the one thing that - I think - we can all agree on: on July 1, 1867, a country named Canada was formed. - Eron Talk 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The above lead sounds good to me. Thanks again for the proposal. Regards, -- Jeff3000 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It sounds good to me too. It avoids contentious terminology. It's unfortunate that the word Confederation cannot be used, as it refers unambiguously to the unification of existing British North American dominions/colonies/posessions into a federation. However, it eliminates the contentious, ambiguous, archaic, vague, colonial and monarchist term "dominion". I can live with this. -- Soulscanner 17:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see Confederation added back in as follows:
I'd also request changing "independence" to "autonomy" as follows:
I am genuinely trying to improve this article. I'd appreciate it if someone could explain how my minor tweaks to some of the other text in the second paragraph of the lead, which I have explained above, have resulted in an "inferior proposal." Seriously, I can't see it; I'd like some specific feedback. - Eron Talk 17:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Canada is a Dominion (see Clause 3). The long-form name of the Dominion of Canada is unfortunately disputed here by many Wikipedians.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Quizimodo. I thank you very much for your efforts to include the term Federal Dominion in the second paragraph. I personally support the idea. However, the majority of Wikipedians are "ill-informed" on this issue, and unfortunately Wikipedia is run by the majority vote of the "ignorant-mob".
Best wishes eh, ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
'Ill-informed?Ignorant mob?' Nice. All hail your enlightening influence. Leaving that aside, I applaud the originality of 'Federal Dominion', but is it realy necessary to create a new term? It is not a matter of proving that it should be excluded, but that proving that it should be included. And that goes for 'Confederation' too, or whatever term: kingdom, empire, viceroyalty, grand poobarate, whatever. How does the state refer to itself? Going back into the mists of time to ponder acts of Parliament and pronouncements of the English government doesn't help, because we can argue for ages on legalty niceties and historical nuances. How does the state here and now refer to itsself. If it uses 'dominion', that needs to be cited. If it uses 'confederation', that needs to be cited. If it uses 'federal dominion', it needs to be cited. Let's not get bogged down in the mire of history- let's stick to the here and now.-- Gazzster 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I stand by what I have stated. 'Dominion', in the context of a former dependency of Great Britain, is a historical term (in a broader context, it obviously has a broader meaning). The titles you have stated (without references) are no longer used. Certainly not in the case of Australia (I am an Australian) where 'Dominion of Australia' has never been used. The
Constitution of Australia does not refer to a 'Federal Dominion' but to a 'Federal Commonwealth', so I do not know where you got that term from. And it should be noted that 'Federal Commonwealth' does not form part of Australia's title. The full title of my nation is 'Commonwealth of Australia' and always has been. The correct term, if you need to use one, is '
Commonwealth realm'. This term is not however analagous to 'dominion', for CR denotes a fully independent nation, as opposed to an autonomous dominion. However Australia never refers to itself as a Commonwealth realm, only as the 'Commonwealth of Australia'. The last time the British government used the term dominion to refer to one of the now Commonwealth realms was in 1948. I challenge you to demonstrate where the Commonwealth realms continue to use the term dominion to describe themselves. As to the title of Canada in specie I cannot say: I am not an expert about Canadian matters. Perhaps they do continue to use dominion, in which case, it would be in a very specific context. May I point out that you seem to have ignored one of my most pertinent points: dominion is a nebulous term is a particular historical context. The context was the British Empire. The BE no longer exists. Therefore, 'dominion' is no longer a valid term. I repeat what I have observed before: some editors in Wikipedia (I am not referring in particular to you, please understand Armchair) seem to assert, across a wide range of articles, that 'dominion' is still a valid term to categorise former dependencies of Great Britain. This is patently false.--
Gazzster
11:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought the main issue under discussion here was whether or not to include dominion in the lede/lead, not whether or not is was EVER appropriate to apply the term "dominion" to Canada. Requesting a source to support its being contentious in the lede is silly - the only source that could ever be applicable is the talk page. The discussion needs to focus on one issue at a time -- JimWae 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
From the government of Canada's website: "Canada’s Capital straddles the border of two provinces (Ontario and Quebec), contains two major cities (Ottawa and Gatineau) and has two official languages (English and French)." ( http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16297-24515-25108&lang=1)
So, the government of Canada says that "Canada's Capital" is the NCR, but this article says that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. Should that be changed?
On one hand, the constitution says that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. On the other hand, it's hard to deny that the government buildings now span both Ottawa and Gatineau. (The constitution was written back when Ottawa was a tiny industrial town.)
Perhaps Ottawa is the de jure capital while Ottawa-Gatineau is the de facto capital?
What do you think? Personally, I think the article should be changed to say that the capital is the NCR, but I wouldn't mind seeing if we can reach a consensus here first. Scientivore 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This issue of using the word Dominion has been debated before, and a preamble referring editors to the article " Canada's name" exists precisely to avoid this kind of contentious debate. The referenced article and the etymology document the evolution of this word, and provide a longstanding consensus.
I recommend a similar tack be taken here, as the issue is so similar that it would be splitting hairs to say that it was different. Issues regarding whether Canada was a Dominion in 1867 or remains one should be discussed at the Dominion page. Once a consensus definition is clarified there, we can decide whether the terminology is clear enough to use in the lead here. -- Soulscanner 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect. In 1867 the term Dominion did not refer to any colony within the British Empire.
Colony: a possession with or without a locally elected assembly.
Province: a possession with a locally elected assembly. This is known as a Representative Government.
Self-Governing Province: a possession with a locally elected assembly that the Governor, by convension, is not supposed to over-rule (also known as a Self-Governing Colony). This known is as a Responsible Government (i.e, the Governor is responsible to the Elected Assembly).
Dominion: (a short form for a Self-Governing Dominion) a country in Personal Union with the UK.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Archaic ... which meaning.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archaic
Next, you are utterly incorrect again. The term Dominion does not mean colonial status with limited self-government (that would be a Self-Governing Colony). Dominion does not equate to a Self-Governing Colony. Lastly what the hell happenned in 1948 to formally include the term Realm?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Good Grief, Charlie Brown. What utter circular non-sensical rubbish. The Dominion of Canada (or just "Canada") was not created as a resurrected Dominion of New England, nor a Federation of the West Indies, Federation of Malaya, or Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Get a grip eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we have some good faith here? I do not see how accusations that one side or the other is attempting to promote monarchism or republicanism are helping to resolve this. - Eron Talk 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
How does the term Dominion comprimise the neutrality of the Canada article?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
An arguement can be readily presented to demonstrate that Canada from 1867-1982 was a Dominion. Another arguement can be readily presented to demonstrate that after the Canada Act 1982, that Canada is still a Dominion (i.e., post 1982).
However, such things will simply be dismissed by the majority of Wikipedians here. They will scream original research, or exhibit willful blindness and simply not see reason.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gazzster. Thank you for kindly asking me to make my analysis/arguements on Canada as being a Dominion. I shall do this to the best of my ability indeed.
One thing that may be of interest to you as an Australian, is that in the original Australian Constitution of 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was explicitly declared in the text as a Federal Commonwealth (this was taken later to mean a Federal Dominion).
I do know that the proposed name of the Dominion of Australia was debated and formally rejected. Do you know why? I'm asking you as an Australian, as me-self as an English-Canadian am not certain why this occurred eh.
Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your courtesy. About 'Federal Commonwealth': if you look at our discourse above, it was actually myself who pointed out to you that this term is used in the Constitution, rather than 'Federal Dominion', which you were asserting. I do not know what you mean by 'taken later to mean a Federal Dominion.' By whom, and when? I have never heard of the phrase. Give me a reference.I have not heard of any debate to call Australia the 'Dominion of Australia'. If there was it must have been during the constitutional conventions before federation in 1901, for the Constitution itself never uses the phrase. I take it that you are retracting the idea that Dominion of Australia is a title. Thanks for your honesty. As for why such a name might have been rejected, I cannot say. I can only suggest that 'dominion' implied a notion of subservience to Great Britain, which, even in 1901, was considered opprobrious to most Australians, in particular to the Irish who formed a good part of the population.Cheers. -- Gazzster 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
N.B. Main points of this edit have been placed as requested in lead in article Canada's name. -- Soulscanner 11:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Soulscanner 10:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk • contribs)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)
I think we need a poll to clarify where we all stand.
All here agree that Canada became a federation in 1867 and that it essential for understanding what Canada currently is. We are in disagreement as to whether this is the case with "federal dominion". Indeed, the only source that supports use of this word is a website from the Commonwealth Office that has no author or references listed; it is also hosted by an organization dedicated to promoting the British Monarch. It is not an academic source.
Is "federation" (or "federal state") a better word than "federal dominion" for describing Canada in the lead? -- Soulscanner 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not particularly sure where this will go, but I felt the debate over the use of this single word had become far too convoluted, whether purposefully or accidentally, for anyone to keep a grasp on the actual issue. Thus, I thought I'd attempt to sum up the arguments. As I'm more familiar with the pro-dominion arguments, it seems obvious the pro arguments here are more hashed out. Please feel free to add/edit as appropriate. -- G2bambino 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So that we're clear, the debate focuses on the use of the word " dominion" in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of this article:
Arguments in favour of retention of "dominion":
Arguments against retention of "dominion":
Here's a short summary of response. References can be found on my postings above and below. Thank you. -- Soulscanner 10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I support every one of G2's responses, so needn't comment further. Quizimodo 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
To go point by point about the reasons for inclusion of the term dominion, then:
Canadian Oxford Dictionary, entry for 'Canada' (p. 220): Canada became a federation of provinces with dominion status in 1867... Canadian Encyclopedia: In 1914 the king declared war on behalf of the entire empire, but the Dominions (a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members) decided... Constitution Act, 1867: Preamble: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown...; II Union: ...the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada... CIA World Factbook, entry for Canada: Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867... The one main cite provided in argument against its use is a personal website of a 22 year old university student, and thus does not conform to WP:V."
And, if one looks at the list above, none of the reasons cited for inclusion amount to much more than a) denial of any dispute about meaning; b) claims to clarity; c) reliance upon the term for clarity; d) use in other sources. All of these reasons (it seems to me) are disputed: a) the meaning is not clear, because dispute exists; b) see (a); if the term is not clear, using it again does not make it more clear; and, d) if the sources cited do not clarify, repeating the use of an unclear term does not add to clarity. I grant (as I have before) that the use of an unclear term with longwinded explanations is fine - just not in the lead.
So: why does it need to be in the lead apart from the reasons cited?-- Gregalton 09:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gregalton.
Prime Minister Wilfred Lauier
He specifically coined the legal term "Self-Governing Dominion" (its short form being "Dominion") at the British Commonwealth Conference of 1907 (I own the facsmile copy of the minutes of the 1907 conference). Laurier knew exactly what Dominion meant. The comments that you quote are refering to the wish for more offical power being transfered from London.
Prime Minister Robrt Borden
He was an ardent advocate of the British Empire becoming a Federal Empire. He wanted all British Possessions to become one big "super-country". An idealistic dreamer he was indeed. The "Nation that is not a Nation" comment most like refered to the 1917 Imperial War Cabinet arguements.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney
Mulroney? You actually quoted Mulroney. Are you daft? He was bar-none, the most hated PM in Canadian history. It was no small feat to achieve but ... Everyone disagree with what he said "Canada was".
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gazzster, I am very sorry and apologise.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gregalton. Point-in-fact, I did not criticise PM Sir Wilfred Laurier, nor PM Sir Robert Borden.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend that the responders to my statement above begin countering my referenced claims instead of repeating items that I've already addressed in my referenced posts above.
Normally, we do not need to overly picky about scholarly versus institutional sources. However, at this point in the debate we are going to have insist on it. This debate has gone on too long and we need to absolutely strict about accepting only the most legitimate scholarly sources for the lead. It is obvious what the common thread is.
These three sources have been cited, ostensibly in support of calling Canada a federal dominion at the time of Confederation. None of these really support this nomenclature.
However, only the first source qualifies as a valid scholarly source in the very strict sense required here. This source appears in the Canadian Encyclopedia, and is written by a legitimate Canadian historian, Norman Hillmer of Carleton University. It is hence an acceptable source here.
The second source appears as a caption on a map of the Atlas of Canada produced by Natural Resources Canada. I cannot find the author of this document, so we cannot be sure of its source. This map caption also refers to Canada as a confederation, which appears to be mistaken. Hence it appears that some academic rigor is missing here, making it of dubious quality in comparison to the Encyclopedia article.
The third source appears at the Commonwealth Commission's history page. There is no author attributed to this source. This publisher 's mission is to promote the British Commonwealth and Monarchy, so it's objectivity is dubious. It's purpose is not to document history in a scholarly fashion, but to paint the British Empire and Commonwealth in as good a light as possible. In so doing, it publishes inaccuracies.
Most troubling is the outright falsehood that the intention of the British authorities or even the Fathers of Confederation was to establish a more autonomous status for the British dominion (dominion meant colony in the nomenclature of the day). It is clearly established by explicit quotes on the article Canada's name that the intentions of choosing Dominion were: a) upholding Queen Victoria's dominion or supremacy over the Canadian territory; b) British colonial officials thought that the preferred title, "Kingdom" would offend republican sensibilities in the U.S.; c) The Premier of New Brunswick liked the biblical overtones.
No primary source is quoted that ever says that anyone in Britain granted more autonomy or that the father's of Confederation even wanted it. The quotes say quite the opposite. And the actions of Britain following confederation showed the opposite, as documented above. Britain passed laws that explicitly restricted the autonomy of colonies following Confederation, whether they were called "Dominions" or not. No incident in actions or in words recognized more autonomy for Canada or the "dominions" until 1917, and this wasn't formalized until 1919 (see sources from Frank Scott above).
Hence only Hillmer's article serves as an authoritative source. The Atlas of Canada serves as an acceptable compliment to the article. The anonymous article by the former British Colonial Office is best regarded as institutional propaganda, similar to what one might expect from the Turkish government on the Armenian genocide. It should be removed as a reference unless it is explicitly used to identify the position of the Commonwealth Commission. -- Soulscanner 10:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
With CONFEDERATION in 1867, Canada became the first federation in the British Empire ...
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
In 1867, the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are united in a federal state, the Dominion of Canada....
The British North America Act of 1867 brought together four British colonies ... in one federal Dominion under the name of Canada.
Soulscanner wrote,
I must ask here ... Soulscanner is your first language English?
a). Do you understand that "Dominion" is different than "dominion"?
b). Yes it would offend the USA.
c). Ummm err ... So what?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this whole 'is Canada a dominion' thing can be solved quite simply: 1) We have to consider whether Canada here and now considers itself to be a dominion. And here we need to refer to parliamentary legislation. If Canada was constituted as a 'dominion', has that constitution been amended by legislation? If so, please cite that legislation. 2 Define what is meant by 'dominion'; this is a primary cause of dispute. Is 'Dominion' in a context proper to Canada alone, with a meaning of its own, or does the term refer to a broader context, ie., an autonomous constituent of the British Empire.I would strongly suggest that it cannot refer to the latter, for the BE no longer exists.
So, has the initial title of Canada been changed by legislation, and is 'dominion' proper to Canada?-- Gazzster 08:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) The initial title, though disused, has not been changed by legislation. Numerous reputable sources indicate the legitimacy and currency of 'dominion' as Canada's title; e.g.,
Quizimodo 16:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(2) The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines 'dominion' as (2004, p. 443, sense 3):
Quizimodo 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can cite that dominion is still part of Canada's title, then of course the article can remain edited to reflect that. As to the second part, a dictionary is not a political and cultural authority. In fact, it is weak argument to refer to a dictionary at all. The Commonwealth in fact does not have any 'self-governing territories',as if the Commonwealth were an umbrella authority. The Commonwealth is made up of 'self-governing territories', several of which are republics. These could hardly be called 'dominions'. And as the discourse between Armchair and myself revealed, the Commonwealth of Australia (and other Commonwealth realms) no longer use the title 'dominion', if ever they did (and in the case of Australia, it most certainly did not) . The British government stopped using the term in 1948. So here I believe you are on shakier ground. --
Gazzster
10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You haven't really been following what I'm saying. If you can cite that dominion is still part of Canada's title, then of course the article can remain edited to reflect that. So if you can, no arguments. As to the second point, an editor has yet to prove that the term 'dominion', taken in a wider context, is still used to describe the Commonwealth realms. -- Gazzster 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In any modern encyclopedia, atlas, or other reference book, Canada is simply reffered to as "Canada". The title "Dominion of Canada" was dropped decades ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The CIA article is a perfect example of why use of dominion in a short summary about Canada is a problem. The CIA article is silent on the changes that have occurred since 1867, and one can be forgiven for getting the impression from that CIA article that Canada is still a dominion subject to the UK. As for our article, just mentioning dominion in the lede raises the question whether Canada is still a dominion - and our lede is also completely silent on that (and any lede must be so on that issue, since it is too complex an issue for a lede). Canada is clearly NOT a dominion in the same sense that it was one in 1867, for it is no longer a dominion of the UK. Canada is clearly now a realm & the monarch's title no longer claims Canada as one of her dominions. IF Canada is also still a dominion, it is one in title only (mostly, in my opinion, since nobody has tackled officially changing it). Including dominion in the lede is not INaccurate with regard to past history, but its information value for a reader unfamilar with the term does not justify including it. Canada's actual status within the UK did not change with Confederation - on 2 July 1867 it was still a mostly self-governing colony of the UK - except the term colony was substituted out. What changed in 1867 was that 3 BNA colonies united into a federation of 4 provinces, with the expectation of more provinces to come. The only reason I can think of that people want to include dominion in the lede is that they like the term for one reason or another. Personally, I do not like using terms about Canada that would suggest (rightly or wrongly) to many people that it is not an independent country. But encyclopedia should not be about personal likes & dislikes, they should be about being informative & not needlessly confusing the reader.-- JimWae 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As I've said before, I'm not an expert on Canadian affairs, so I will let other minds discuss how the word 'dominion' is used in Canadian history. I can however speak to how 'dominion' was used to describe former dependencies of Great Britain which are now either Commonwealth realms or republics. In my opinion JimWae drops peals of wisdom when he says:
As for our article, just mentioning dominion in the lede raises the question whether Canada is still a dominion - and our lede is also completely silent on that (and any lede must be so on that issue, since it is too complex an issue for a lede). Canada is clearly NOT a dominion in the same sense that it was one in 1867, for it is no longer a dominion of the UK. Canada is clearly now a realm & the monarch's title no longer claims Canada as one of her dominions. IF Canada is also still a dominion, it is one in title only (mostly, in my opinion, since nobody has tackled officially changing it). Including dominion in the lede is not INaccurate with regard to past history, but its information value for a reader unfamilar with the term does not justify including it.
Here JimWae touches on a very pertinent point, one which I have been trying to express. Here it is more eloquently put. From what I have been gleaning from the contribution of editors, Canada was founded as a dominion, yes. But what is meant by dominion? Was it a term placed in a specific context for Canada in 1867? If not, does it have the same meaning as the term 'dominion' (which was never constitutionally defined by Great Britain or its colonies) used some 30 or so years later to describe autonomous constituents of the British Empire? Here lies the ambiguity. If Canada was constituted a 'dominion' (as it seems to have been), does it remain so, especially as 'dominion' is almost always interpreted as a paternalistic, outdated, colonial term? The former dominions of Australia and New Zealand do not use the term (if ever they did officially). Can we say that Canada also rightly objects to the term? To sum up: yes, Canada was constituted a 'dominion', but even though no legislation may have overturned the title (I don't know) can we still call Canada a dominion?
Can I also add that I am enjoying this discussion. Only in Wikipedia could we get down to such nuances and depths. Great stuff!-- Gazzster 08:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
::Dominion title should not be in the lead paragraph, it should be in the historical sections though IMHO. I'm no constitutional expert, but I do recall in my school history classes of long ago, Canada chose the title Dominion of Canada in 1867. At some point in the 20th century, the Dominon title was dropped (how & when exactly? I don't know). How the Dominion vs dominion got started? Is (to me) a larger mystery and headache. Ya know, its pointed out to me once, that Canada (today) is actually a kingdom (but that's another headache).
GoodDay
15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Quizmodo, I have to acknowledge that you went to the trouble to find references to Australia as a dominion, and I might even have to acknowledge that some individuals or organisations may still refer to the Commonwealth as such. Certainly the author of the review of the book referred to [16]]. But the second reference [17]) is talking about Australia in the past. And before 1953, true, it was called a domininion. It was however never part of its official title ( Constitution of Australia). I would still argue that 'dominion' is not used in reference to Australia in any meaningful way nowadays. You are right, New Zealand called itself a dominion after being granted that status by Britain. However, in 1946 the prime minister of NZ gave instructions to his government to drop the term from official documentation ( Dominion of New Zealand).This was done because even in 1946, the term carried paternalistic overtones. From the accession of Elizabeth II the term was dropped entirely for the former dependencies of Great Britain. The term 'realm' was used instead and continues to be used. This is an example of a term becoming obsolete and irrelevant, not by abrogation, but by disuse. Some of us are simply suggesting that this may be the case for Canada. If I may suggest, without intending to be personal, that to say a country remains a dominion, simply because the document of constitution has not been amended or abolished, is excessively legalistic. Surely this encyclopedia does not merely reflect the points and dots of the law, but also the common understanding of minds and hearts concerning a particular topic. The present status of Canada (and other former dominions) has to be taken in historical context. I might refer you to an article of the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (27,2): The Strange Death of Dominion Status, by D. Macintyre. This work is available online. If this academic is to be credited, the title alone gives you an indication of the present state of the term 'dominion.' In this article, Macintyre explains that 'dominion' was a loosely defined term to describe states between a colony and an independent state. It was never intended to have permanent status. Those countries were given dominion status precisely because it was intended they be sovereign states in the future. Now the former dominions are independent realms, and so, the word no longer has any meaning for them. As to your points about the word 'confederation': that does not concern me. I don't know enough about that. I am concerned about how the word dominion is treated.-- Gazzster 04:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
fools rush in where angels fear to tread. The Government of Canada says that 'Dominion of Canada' is the title of the country: "1. The British North America Act, 1867 (Constitution Act, 1867) that created Canada gave it an official title. What was it? a) Dominion of Canada. ... It remains our country's official title." [ [18]] The British North America Act, 1867, does not use the word title: it says Canada "shall be One Dominion under the Name of Canada" and uses the word 'name' and the name 'Canada' throughout. [ [19]] So it seems Canada has a title and a name, and the two are not exactly the same thing. Richardson mcphillips1 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
'Fool'? If you're going to be insulting you don't merit a reply.-- Gazzster 04:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely apologise if that was your intention, Richardson. In which case, you do deserve a reply. There is no argument that Canada was constituted a dominion. And, I believe, there is no argument that the relevant acts still contain the phrase 'Dominion of Canada'. So the lead can certainly say, Canada was constituted a dominion. The question some of us are raising is, what is Canada now? And we touch on interesting points here. Is 'Dominion' a term created specifically for Canada? In this case, 'Dominion' has a meaning proper to Canada alone, and there is really no probolem in continuing to state that Canada is a 'dominion'. But might 'dominion' have the same meaning as 'dominion' used to describe autonomous states within the British Empire; Australia, New Zealand, South Africa , Newfoundland, etc. In the latter case, 'dominion' is no longer a valid term. It only had validity in the context of the British Empire. The Empire no longer exists.The term is no longer used, replaced by 'realm' in 1953. Some of us are simply asking: even though the term has not been repealed, does it still apply? Does a word on a piece of paper 140 years necessarily remain valid for all time? Does the Canadian government still call itself a Dominion? It is reasonable to ask this question.-- Gazzster 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I did mean I was the fool: I used that figure of speech because clearly a lot of intelligent people have thought about these issues in great detail, and I hesitated to join the fray. I included two quotations, one from the Gov't of Canada, and a quotation from the BNA Act 1867, to which the Gov't of Canada referred. The quotation from the Gov't of Canada answers your reasonable question: the Canadian government titles Canada as 'Dominion of Canada'. "It remains our country's official title". It seems to me that any interpretation of what 'dominion' means today is moot, or perhaps, interesting but not ad rem. I included the second reference to indicate that it seems to me that some of the debate and/or confusion might be over an apparent distinction between title and name. I start with the primary texts, which should have pride of place before any forays - important as they are - into what the words really mean today. Richardson mcphillips1 01:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your balanced analysis. Yes, I am convinced now that the title 'Dominion of Canada' remains.-- Gazzster 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
JimWae, you know very little about Constitutional Law, Legal Convensions , or Order-of-Precedence (i.e., "He who proceeds first"). The presence of the phrase Dominion of Canada in the British North America Act 1871 (i.e., the first ammendment of the original BNA Act 1867) constitutes the quoting of the country's long-form name. A long-form name is of higher legal rank (i.e., higher in Order-of-Precedence) than a short-form name. Thus, by legal convension the writing of the phrase Dominion of Canada explicity in British North America Act 1871 constitutes the implicit assignment of the Dominion of Canada in the original British North America Act 1867.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And come to that, 'Dominion of Canada' does not appear in the 1982 Act either. But the Canada Heritage site sponsored by the government and cited by Richardson does say 'Dominion of Canada' remains the title of Canada. So where does that leave us?--
Gazzster
11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It is nice to see more people than the last time I saw this argument agree that Canada's title still is "Dominion", however, it is not really the issue that needs consensus to unlock this page. What is at question is whether or not to use the word in the opening paragraphs. I, and many others, believe it is not useful to use the word in what should be a clear and concise introduction to the subject of Canada. The meaning, connotation, and significance has been debated for a century and its use is not appropriate in the introduction. It can be, and is, mentioned briefly in the body of the article and should be covered in detail in the articles on Canada's name and Dominion. It adds no value to the lead and, in fact, detracts from it. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hm, the United States Department of State does not agree, stating that Canada has no long-form name. It appears that the matter may not be as open and shut as some editors think it is. - Eron Talk 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, after this latest exchange, I have to reserve my judgement again; the Government's position is not clear. The word 'dominion' certainly does not appear in the 1982 Act. Can anyone tell us for a fact: does the 1982 Act abrogate or simply amend the 1867 Act? I would suggest that the only authority which can state the long form name of Canada is the government of Canada itself. We may have to pay an online visit to the Governor-General's website or the PM's website.-- Gazzster 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia entry for 'Canada' lists GDP per capita at $32,614 and adjusted for PPP at $35,600. The Wikipedia entry for 'List of Canadian provinces and territorries by gross domestic product' lists different figures. The figure here at PPP is $44,118. This is a huge difference. Which is correct? Perhaps, neither? I can see the nominal figure for Canada being $44,118 because of the rapid increase in the value of the Canadian dollar and the figure at PPP being perhaps around $40,000.
The current listings just don't make sense though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.40.223 ( talk) 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
An attempt to satisfy the monarchists here who wish to see the word "dominion" in the lead while not muddying up the clarity and simplicity of the introductory paragraphs.
I believe it is a mistake to call Canada a dominion in the lead since it is difficult to define and controversial. However, it is nearly incontrovertible that it was entitled a Dominion in 1867, whatever, if anything, that meant. Following that logic, I have drafted the following final two sentences of paragraph two:
In 1867, Confederation united three colonies in federation to form the Dominion of Canada and began the process of uniting the remainder of British North America. The 1867 Act granted general powers of self-government and increasing independence was achieved in successive Acts, culminating in the Canada Act 1982, which severed the final vestige of dependence on the British parliament. And remove the words "A federation" from the beginning of paragraph three.
DoubleBlue ( Talk) 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Semi-autonomous? You are missing the point completely. Please stop trying to judge the independence of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, Irish Free State, India, and Pakistan from a Republican point-of-view, for that is what you are doing.
The Dominions are (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) or were (Newfoundland, South Africa, Irish Free State, India, and Pakistan) independent countries that chose to have as their figure Head-of-State the Constitutional-Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..
The "independence" angle is constantly harped on by people that don't like the fact that we are a Dominion. That is what we were founded as in 1867, and that is what we are today ... a Dominion!
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying this? Especially as you have already conceded that Australia has never called itself a dominion. The British government does not use the term dominion to refer to former dependencies of Great Britain. Why do you continue to insist that they remain dominions. If they are called anything it is Commonwealth realm. If Canada is still a dominion (I don't know), fine. But don't try to paint other Commonwealth realms with the same brush. Really, insisting on 'dominion' is not only wrong but insulting. And we do not 'choose' our head of state: she is a hereditary monarch, and the peoples of her realms have no say as to whether her son will succeed or not.-- Gazzster 11:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello DoubleBlue. The British North America Act 1867 states explictly in Clause 3 that Canada is a Dominion. The BNA Act 1867 is contained (the legal term is consolidated into) within the Canada Act 1982 and has NOT been repealed. Thus Clause 3 of the BNA Act 1867 is still in force and Canada is still a Dominion (back in 1867 and today in 2007).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello DoubleBlue. LOL! Thanks eh.
Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I support this version,
I am having trouble understanding peoples objections to the Dominion word. It is a historical fact ... why do people hate it so much and want to suppress it?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I am thoroughly fed-up with this non-sense. Canada was founded in 1867 as a Dominion. Then the Canada Act 1982 came along, and Canada is still a Dominion. I wash my hands of this whole debate. This talk page epitomises what I hate about Wikipedia ... consensus of the Ignorant-Mob running amok.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
And there speaks the voice of enquiry and understanding. Good on ya, GoodDay.-- Gazzster 04:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so after a couple of weeks without discussion, have we come to the conclusion that the following wording is acceptable for the fourth sentence of the second paragraph?:
Yes. Referring to 'dominion' in quotations makes it clear that the term is to be understood in a context specific to Canada in 1867. Small syntactical objection: it is unecessary to put 'under the United Kingdom' in parentheses. And yes, the whole monarchist vs republican thing is irrelevant, and I don't see any evidence of that in our exchanges.-- Gazzster 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
True, we could spend too long on this and perhaps already have. But surely we're touching on important issues. And one single word can carry great weight. I disagree that our discussion reflects 'personal hang-ups' on the part of certain editors. On the contrary, I have seen sound argument that suggests that the use of the word 'dominion' in this article (and others) needs defining. I notice that (in my opinion) some editors have an altogether outdated understanding of the term. We could of course raise the dread word 'arbitration' and wait for the collective groan. But I think it's best to avoid arb if we can.-- Gazzster 15:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
(In response to G2Bambino): I would have thought that what is a 'superior counter argument' is itself based on a personal assessment. And personal judgements are the very thing you are objecting to. And 'an equally valid counter-point' supposes, does it not, that the original objection is 'valid'? So where's the personal argument there? The 'controversey' is 'purely manufactured'? On the contrary, I have seen intelligent reasoned argument. Intelligent reasonable editors do not produce argument ex nihilo. Supporting what Eron has said, if anyone is resorting to subjective argument, it appears to be you.-- Gazzster 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, Armchair. Personal attack is the lowest form of argument. In fact, it is a poor substitute for good argument. It doesn't do your case any good at all. JimWae and 'people like JimWae' used reasoned intelligent, respectful arguments to illustrate his points. You, on the other hand appear to find it difficult to respond in like manner. In fact, 'dominion' is not pretty clear at all. Dominion is a country within the British Commonwealth that is a Constitutional-Monarchy, in Personal Union with the UK. 1) There is no such thing as the 'British Commonwealth', it is simply 'the Commonwealth', and the UK is not its head; 2) the constitutional monarchies in personal union under Elizabeth II are now called realms, and have been since her accession; 3)the UK government and Buckingham Palace have ceased using the term dominion since 1948, as myself and others have pointed out repeatedly. If there's a statement which appears 'ignorant', it's this one.-- Gazzster 04:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Why you are dividing the United Kingdom and going on about unitary kingdoms (ignoring, by the way, the points I made) I cannot tell. But here is the title of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom: ' N., by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen (etc)'. The Kingdoms of Scotland and England no longer exist. The Crowns are united into a single crown. That is why it is a 'United' Kingdom. After the invasion of Wales that country was never actually ruled by a Prince. The sovereign of Wales was the King of England; the title Prince of Wales is purely titular.--
Gazzster
01:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yaa, I know. The Dominion of Canada is a very good long-form name of this country. I have always liked it. However, I am an English-Canadian (i.e., and English-Speaking Canadian). The objection to this name primarily comes from the French-Canadians (i.e., French-Speaking Canadians) and the Roman-Catholic Irish Republicans. They collectively hate the term Dominion.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Eron.
English-Canadians typically do not have a problem with the term Dominion.
French-Canadians typically do have a problem with the term Dominion.
The Roman Catholic Irish are usually Republican in their sentiment.
What specifically do you have a "problem with" in these observations?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What is a 'typical Canadian'? A 'typical French Canadian'? I think the stereotype may exist in your own imagination. And why do you suppose that contributors on this page who diagree with your arguments must be 'typical French Canadians' or 'Roman Catholic Irish'? Because they disagree with what you believe is the 'English Canadian' perspective? What sort of circular logic is that? What kind of 'observations' are these? And what kind of wholesale pigeon-holing is that?-- Gazzster 04:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
My problem with your observations, Don, is that you are presuming to know someone's political views based on their ethnicity, and their ethnicity based on their political views. There are words for that sort of thinking. You also seem to be fixated on some image of Canada that has little in common with the country as it exists today. While the old French-English divide is still present, the Catholic-Protestant divide is irrelevant. And you seem unaware of the many Canadians who don't fit into your neat categories. What it the Sikh perspective on Dominion? Are Haitian-Canadians monarchist, or republican? What do the Jews think of all this? It's all irrelevant. - Eron Talk 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello GoodDay. What category to you "fit" into? Well what is your first language? What is the language that you think in? The primary organising principle in Canada is linguistic (unfortunately). If your first language is English, then you are an English-Speaking Canadian (i.e., an English-Canadian) and you are of English-Canada. If your first language is French, then you are an French-Speaking Canadian (i.e., an French-Canadian) and you are of French-Canada (additionally the Native-Peoples are divided between these "Two-Solitudes" ).
Take care, and best wishes eh ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Okkie-Dokkie ... loud and clear :)
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So Don, I guess you would agree that this controversy has not been purely manufactured by the editors of this page? --
JimWae
22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)