This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John A. Macdonald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
John A. Macdonald is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 6, 2018, June 6, 2019, and June 6, 2024. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||
|
An issue has come up about the use of the term "federation". It's true that the term "confederation" is used to describe both the process by which the country was formed ("Confederation occurred on July 1, 1867.") and the addition of new provinces ("Saskatchewan joined Confederation on September 1, 1905."). However, that is a very limited use of the term, and a bit of a historical accident. Professor Peter Hogg, one of Canada's leading constitutional scholars, points out that the Canadian usage of "confederation" in this since does not match political science and constitutional law definitions of a "confederation"; it is simply Canadian usage, and is not used to describe the central government.
Canada certainly is a federation. That is the common term used to describe the central government, and the allocation of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments. See for example, the federal government's own web-pages, summarizing the constitutional structure of the country:
As well, the first volume of Hogg's two volume text on Canadian constitutional law is dedicated entirely to the principles of federalism and the allocation of responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. Chapter 5 is dedicated entirely to "Federalism", while chapter 15 is entitled "Judicial Review on Federal Grounds". The next twenty or so chapters all deal with federal provincial allocation of powers. In his chapter on federalism he states: "It is fair to conclude that the unitary elements of the Canadian Constitution are quite unimportant in relation to the federal elements, and that the Canadian Constitution is federal under any reasonable definition of that term." [my emphasis]
See also Eugene Forsey's booklet, How Canadians Govern Themselves, originally commissioned by the federal government. It is now in its 9th edition and provided online, and free charge in hard copy, by the Library of Parliament. Forsey was one of the leading constitutional authorities by the time of his death. Chapter 2 of the book is simply entitled "A Federal State", and begins: "A federal state is one that brings together a number of different political communities with a common government for common purposes, and separate 'state' or 'provincial' or 'cantonal' governments for the particular purposes of each community. The United States of America, Canada, Australia and Switzerland are all federal states. Federalism combines unity with diversity." [my emphasis]
In conclusion, I would say that Canada is a federation; it has a federal government; and it is incorrect to deny that. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 15:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
An issue has arisen about the creation of Ontario and Quebec in 1867. It is not the case that Canada East and Canada West were turned into Quebec and Ontario. Rather, the old Province of Canada entered into union with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and in the process was split into Quebec and Ontario. The relevant sections are sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution Act, 1867. There is no mention of Canada East or Canada West in the Constitution Act, 1867, nor in the predecessor legislation, the Union Act, 1840. They were simply administrative regions in the Province of Canada, without their own legislatures. All local laws were passed by the Parliament of the Province of Canada. The reference in this article therefore should be to Quebec and Ontario being formed from the old Province of Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 15:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find any reliable source supporting the claim that John A. was a KCMG. Many sources cite KCB in 1867, which later (in 1884 according to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography) was upgraded to GCB, but no mention to St. Michael and St. George. He is also not in the list of Canadian members of the order (where you can find Tupper and Abbot but the only Macdonald is Donald Alexander). Can anybody shed a light on this issue? -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 00:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The Dominion of Canada has never been a confederation. It has always been a federation specifically aimed at absorbing anything non WASP.
Read the definition of both words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.103.35 ( talk) 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: I see this is a FA that you had promoted and notice a recent page move. Wanted to check if the page move was appropriate and if you had seen it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: I attempted an edit to fix three distinct problems I see in the current introduction last paragraph, when perhaps they should be discussed separately:
BrightVamp ( talk) 17:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@all It makes no sense to have the last paragraph. Since it is a matter of partisan opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by UApirate33 ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Vaselineeeeeeee: How is this a controversial edit? It is going on, even in Kingston, Macdonald's "hometown". I consider your reverts to be 3RR. Please justify. Alaney2k ( talk) 02:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Necrothesp: I'm afraid I did not understand your rationale for removing the PC. I reviewed the archived talk page you cited and didn't see anything on point. Could you elaborate, please? Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 04:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt and page watchers: I have reviewed this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review and improve articles promoted to featured article status before 2016. I think this article is in great shape, and I conducted a copyedit of this article while doing my review. I also made some changes to the article, which are noted below:
Those are my notes. Feel free to ping me if you have any responses or questions. I also encourage editors to join the work at WP:URFA/2020 to help review older featured articles, or mark this article as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020B if you think it meets the featured article criteria. Z1720 ( talk) 05:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request the change of grammar of: "downtown" instead of "in downtown", because downtown is already its own significance as the placement of the place is down-town. 64.114.222.205 ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Throughout the 1840s, Macdonald invested heavily in real estate, including commercial properties in downtown Toronto), in which case "in" is grammatically correct, as "in downtown Toronto" is a prepositional phrase and it doesn't make sense if you drop the preposition. If there's another usage I'm missing please reopen the request. BelowTheSun ( T• C) 22:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we can split it into "Prime Minister of Canada (1867–1873)", "Opposition (1873–1878)", and "Prime Minister of Canada (1878–1891)"?
Including Opposition 1873–1878 in the Prime Minister section is incorrect. Ak-eater06 ( talk) 22:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Section rename seems a good option. Current article section-subsection hierarchy is nice IMO. Crawdaunt ( talk) 06:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel like you're burying the lead. The man attempted to commit cultural genocide against dozens of nations, yet it isn't even mentioned until the fourth paragraph. — Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is he referenced as Macdonald if he was born Mcdonald? [2] Minilammas ( talk) 08:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me an awful lot of claimed information is being added here with very little verification. I'm not inclined to take much on faith so far as additions to this article go. I would revert to the last clean edit. Wehwalt ( talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the intro, in the sentence where it says William Lyon Mackenzie King served longer, please add a footnote that King did not serve consecutively. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:4973:FEAD:D6F4:620 ( talk) 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
MOS:NATIONALITY states that "the opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable." That includes mentioning the subject's nationality.
Every single other article on a Canadian prime minister, with the exception of John Diefenbaker's, mentions the subject's nationality in the opening sentence. That means this is one of only two articles out of 23 similar ones that deviate from Wikipedia standard practice.
Therefore, what justifies this?
If you want to argue it's because Macdonald was of British (Scottish) birth and that complicates his nationality, every other foreign-born prime minister (Mackenzie, Bowell, Turner) is listed as Canadian.
Unless a good reason is given, our standard policy should be to follow consensus and use consistent writing across all of our articles. This article is the exception, not the rule, to how nationality is addressed on Wikipedia. TheCelebrinator ( talk) 11:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit. Citizenship and nationality is complicated for people born in or immigrants to British North America before Confederation, and this is a featured article. We need a better source for this than someone's assertion that "all prime ministers are Canadian". If there's no source for Macdonald's nationality then it's fine to leave out, regardless of what's said in the biographies of people who are not Macdonald. As Wehwalt said, Macdonald's nationality and heritage are adequately described in the lede's second paragraph. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I'm not sure how this ended up in such dispute. It is not necessary, nor redundant to include the nationality in the opening sentence. Both approaches neither harm nor significantly contribute to the article. On balance, per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, I think it is best to include the nationality — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "On June 18, 2021, following the discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School" to "On June 18, 2021, following the alleged discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School" 2001:56A:7A09:E00:AD06:9F6A:79F9:F864 ( talk) 18:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, there's an error on this page. The Red River Rebellion doesn't exist, it's a misnomer of two separate conflicts; the Red River Resistance, which was before Manitoba officially became part of Canada and was fought at and near the Red River Settlement which is now named Winnipeg; and the Northwest Rebellion at Batoche. This conflict was also led by Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont, but 15 years later, after Riel's exile.
Red River wasn't a rebellion because it wasn't part of Canada yet. 170.253.105.132 ( talk) 01:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John A. Macdonald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
John A. Macdonald is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 6, 2018, June 6, 2019, and June 6, 2024. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||
|
An issue has come up about the use of the term "federation". It's true that the term "confederation" is used to describe both the process by which the country was formed ("Confederation occurred on July 1, 1867.") and the addition of new provinces ("Saskatchewan joined Confederation on September 1, 1905."). However, that is a very limited use of the term, and a bit of a historical accident. Professor Peter Hogg, one of Canada's leading constitutional scholars, points out that the Canadian usage of "confederation" in this since does not match political science and constitutional law definitions of a "confederation"; it is simply Canadian usage, and is not used to describe the central government.
Canada certainly is a federation. That is the common term used to describe the central government, and the allocation of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments. See for example, the federal government's own web-pages, summarizing the constitutional structure of the country:
As well, the first volume of Hogg's two volume text on Canadian constitutional law is dedicated entirely to the principles of federalism and the allocation of responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. Chapter 5 is dedicated entirely to "Federalism", while chapter 15 is entitled "Judicial Review on Federal Grounds". The next twenty or so chapters all deal with federal provincial allocation of powers. In his chapter on federalism he states: "It is fair to conclude that the unitary elements of the Canadian Constitution are quite unimportant in relation to the federal elements, and that the Canadian Constitution is federal under any reasonable definition of that term." [my emphasis]
See also Eugene Forsey's booklet, How Canadians Govern Themselves, originally commissioned by the federal government. It is now in its 9th edition and provided online, and free charge in hard copy, by the Library of Parliament. Forsey was one of the leading constitutional authorities by the time of his death. Chapter 2 of the book is simply entitled "A Federal State", and begins: "A federal state is one that brings together a number of different political communities with a common government for common purposes, and separate 'state' or 'provincial' or 'cantonal' governments for the particular purposes of each community. The United States of America, Canada, Australia and Switzerland are all federal states. Federalism combines unity with diversity." [my emphasis]
In conclusion, I would say that Canada is a federation; it has a federal government; and it is incorrect to deny that. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 15:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
An issue has arisen about the creation of Ontario and Quebec in 1867. It is not the case that Canada East and Canada West were turned into Quebec and Ontario. Rather, the old Province of Canada entered into union with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and in the process was split into Quebec and Ontario. The relevant sections are sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution Act, 1867. There is no mention of Canada East or Canada West in the Constitution Act, 1867, nor in the predecessor legislation, the Union Act, 1840. They were simply administrative regions in the Province of Canada, without their own legislatures. All local laws were passed by the Parliament of the Province of Canada. The reference in this article therefore should be to Quebec and Ontario being formed from the old Province of Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 15:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find any reliable source supporting the claim that John A. was a KCMG. Many sources cite KCB in 1867, which later (in 1884 according to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography) was upgraded to GCB, but no mention to St. Michael and St. George. He is also not in the list of Canadian members of the order (where you can find Tupper and Abbot but the only Macdonald is Donald Alexander). Can anybody shed a light on this issue? -- Deinocheirus ( talk) 00:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The Dominion of Canada has never been a confederation. It has always been a federation specifically aimed at absorbing anything non WASP.
Read the definition of both words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.103.35 ( talk) 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: I see this is a FA that you had promoted and notice a recent page move. Wanted to check if the page move was appropriate and if you had seen it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: I attempted an edit to fix three distinct problems I see in the current introduction last paragraph, when perhaps they should be discussed separately:
BrightVamp ( talk) 17:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@all It makes no sense to have the last paragraph. Since it is a matter of partisan opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by UApirate33 ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Vaselineeeeeeee: How is this a controversial edit? It is going on, even in Kingston, Macdonald's "hometown". I consider your reverts to be 3RR. Please justify. Alaney2k ( talk) 02:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Necrothesp: I'm afraid I did not understand your rationale for removing the PC. I reviewed the archived talk page you cited and didn't see anything on point. Could you elaborate, please? Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 04:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt and page watchers: I have reviewed this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review and improve articles promoted to featured article status before 2016. I think this article is in great shape, and I conducted a copyedit of this article while doing my review. I also made some changes to the article, which are noted below:
Those are my notes. Feel free to ping me if you have any responses or questions. I also encourage editors to join the work at WP:URFA/2020 to help review older featured articles, or mark this article as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020B if you think it meets the featured article criteria. Z1720 ( talk) 05:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request the change of grammar of: "downtown" instead of "in downtown", because downtown is already its own significance as the placement of the place is down-town. 64.114.222.205 ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Throughout the 1840s, Macdonald invested heavily in real estate, including commercial properties in downtown Toronto), in which case "in" is grammatically correct, as "in downtown Toronto" is a prepositional phrase and it doesn't make sense if you drop the preposition. If there's another usage I'm missing please reopen the request. BelowTheSun ( T• C) 22:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we can split it into "Prime Minister of Canada (1867–1873)", "Opposition (1873–1878)", and "Prime Minister of Canada (1878–1891)"?
Including Opposition 1873–1878 in the Prime Minister section is incorrect. Ak-eater06 ( talk) 22:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Section rename seems a good option. Current article section-subsection hierarchy is nice IMO. Crawdaunt ( talk) 06:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel like you're burying the lead. The man attempted to commit cultural genocide against dozens of nations, yet it isn't even mentioned until the fourth paragraph. — Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is he referenced as Macdonald if he was born Mcdonald? [2] Minilammas ( talk) 08:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me an awful lot of claimed information is being added here with very little verification. I'm not inclined to take much on faith so far as additions to this article go. I would revert to the last clean edit. Wehwalt ( talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the intro, in the sentence where it says William Lyon Mackenzie King served longer, please add a footnote that King did not serve consecutively. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:4973:FEAD:D6F4:620 ( talk) 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
MOS:NATIONALITY states that "the opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable." That includes mentioning the subject's nationality.
Every single other article on a Canadian prime minister, with the exception of John Diefenbaker's, mentions the subject's nationality in the opening sentence. That means this is one of only two articles out of 23 similar ones that deviate from Wikipedia standard practice.
Therefore, what justifies this?
If you want to argue it's because Macdonald was of British (Scottish) birth and that complicates his nationality, every other foreign-born prime minister (Mackenzie, Bowell, Turner) is listed as Canadian.
Unless a good reason is given, our standard policy should be to follow consensus and use consistent writing across all of our articles. This article is the exception, not the rule, to how nationality is addressed on Wikipedia. TheCelebrinator ( talk) 11:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit. Citizenship and nationality is complicated for people born in or immigrants to British North America before Confederation, and this is a featured article. We need a better source for this than someone's assertion that "all prime ministers are Canadian". If there's no source for Macdonald's nationality then it's fine to leave out, regardless of what's said in the biographies of people who are not Macdonald. As Wehwalt said, Macdonald's nationality and heritage are adequately described in the lede's second paragraph. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I'm not sure how this ended up in such dispute. It is not necessary, nor redundant to include the nationality in the opening sentence. Both approaches neither harm nor significantly contribute to the article. On balance, per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, I think it is best to include the nationality — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "On June 18, 2021, following the discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School" to "On June 18, 2021, following the alleged discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School" 2001:56A:7A09:E00:AD06:9F6A:79F9:F864 ( talk) 18:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, there's an error on this page. The Red River Rebellion doesn't exist, it's a misnomer of two separate conflicts; the Red River Resistance, which was before Manitoba officially became part of Canada and was fought at and near the Red River Settlement which is now named Winnipeg; and the Northwest Rebellion at Batoche. This conflict was also led by Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont, but 15 years later, after Riel's exile.
Red River wasn't a rebellion because it wasn't part of Canada yet. 170.253.105.132 ( talk) 01:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)