![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period Nov 2005 – July 2008. 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. |
What does "Stadacona" means? Etymologically at least... Its important to make the etymological meaning of Canada more complete.
Does CDN stand for "Canada DominioN"? -- Henrygb 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I put "Dominion of Canada" in the search box intending to get to Canada, but I was redirected to this article. Just curious, is there a particular reason/Wikipedian precedent as for why "Dominion of Canada" redirects here and not Canada? Thanks. Chef Ketone 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! For our collective information and in summary regarding Canada's name and dominion: I've recently added a reference from a titular book by Alan Rayburn (a prior executive secretary of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names), Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names (which I dredged up from my library recently), that crystallises everything regarding this issue rather succinctly (with emphasis retained). On p. 18, Rayburn found that:
I think that's it for me regarding this. Au revoir! E Pluribus Anthony 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Every map I have ever seen has labled Canada as The Dominion of Canada. I was always under the impression that that was its full name. But, just as we don't call "Billy Bob Smith Jr.", "Billy Bob Smith Junior", but rather refer to him as "Bill", "Billy", "mr. Smith", and on the rare occasion "Sir", we refer to The Dominion of Canada, as it is our friend, not as "The Dominion in Canada", we call it "Canada". However, as this is an Encyclopedia, meant for full names(I certaintly would not want an encyclopedia to be on first name basis with me), it would be best to use "The Dominion of Canada. Samsomite
This is a very old arguement. I support the position that the long form name of the country formed on July 1, 1867, was and is today the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. The overwhelming majority (i.e., the consensus) of people here hold the view that the only name of the country founded on July 1, 1867, is simply just Canada. I support the position that this "constitutional literalist" interpretation of letter of the constitution in fact violates the spirit of constitution that the Fathers of Confederation intended (i.e., the Fathers of Confederation intent was to designate that the long form name of the country as the Dominion of Canada).
If one carefully inspects all of the relavent amendments to the British North America Act for the first 50 years of this country's existance (i.e., 1867-1917) one will note the explicit inclusion of the long form full name of the Dominion of Canada (and correspondingly use of Canada as a short form name) in every salient document.
The term Style and Title (or just Style, or Title alone) does in fact mean "the long form name". This is borne out when one studies the rules of the Order of Precedence (literally meaning "who proceeds first").
The Constitution of the Dominion of Canada was explicitly modeled on the Constitutions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921), and amended via the model of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (since 1921). To this end if one uses the doctrine of Comparative Common Law one may note the following important Constitutional Clauses,
Upon insection of The Treaty (or Act) of Union 1707
Article I. That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon the first day of May next ensuing date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain, and that the ensigns armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint, and the crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit, and be used in all flags, banners and ensigns, both at sea and land.
Article II. That the succession to the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and the dominions thereunto belonging, after Her Most Sacred Majesty, ...
Article III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain.
Therefore argument proceeds as follows, if the long form name of Great Britain in 1707 was taken to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain, then similarly the long form name of Canada in 1867 was taken to be the Dominion of Canada.
70.30.193.143 19:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ground Zero. It is nice to hear from you indeed. As per the content of Article Pages, I shall not engage in edit wars. They are fruitless, and it ends up in me being banned. As per Talk Pages, I shall express my opinions as I see fit, within the Wikipedia guidelines. If you review my above words they are well within the guidelines of "acceptable conduct".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArmchairVexillologistDon
PS, could you please UNLOCK my UserPage, and my User-TalkPage. They are still blocked as the person who locked them has left Wikipedia. I would be most grateful if you, or someone else with Administrator Powers could do me the courtesy.
Howdy Saxifrage :) Thank you for the kind and friendly "Welcome Back". I appreciate it alot indeed. Thanks as well for the compliment on my research skills. I can be a "wee-bit of a Ferret" in that department eh. Take care, and best wishes, and see you around ole Wikipedia eh :)
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that this be moved to Name of Canada for consistency and formality. see Names of Japan, Names of Korea, Names of China, Etymology of India for similar articles. -- Jiang 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I support Etymology of Canada or even Names for Canada over my original proposal. but to emphasize the single term for the country, we should use parenthesis such as in Canada (name) or Canada (etymology). "Canada's name" sounds like some book or TV show... -- Jiang 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with "Etymology of Canada". This article covers more than just the derivation of Canada -- it covers other names that were proposed, and the issue of what was to come before the name -- Dominion, Kingdom, etc. "Etymology would be just plain incorrect as the name of this article. I don't obejct to the other proposals. Ground Zero | t 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
One major difference between this and the other articles is that most of this article is Debating the name of canada whether Dominion of canada or just Canada is the correct name, with the others just added in as a bit of other info.
Thank the Fathers of Confederation for choosing Canada! GBC 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree.
-G
The title Dominion has been dropped by Canada due to its relation with monarchy and aggravating Quebec nationalists. I wonder if anyone has recognized Canada as officially the "Confederation of Canada" or as I have heard the title "Canadian Confederation" used before, similar to Russian Federation. Could this be the unrecognized official name of Canada?
The reference to a Heritage Canada Web brochure is not a valid source for the origin of the word Canada. A better source would have been a run-of-the-mill dictionary of Indians names, such as Bernard Assiniwi’s Lexique des noms indiens du Canada, or even Hurtig’s Canadian Enclyclopedia, but even such sources are not much better.
A distinction is clearly made in the academic literature between the inhabitants of the St-Lawrence Valley, the “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians,” and the Iroquois and Huron living near Lake Ontario. In the Smithsonian’s “Handbook of the North American Indians” – which has perhaps 10 or 15 thousand pages – there is a revealing map (volume 15, page ix) of Indian tribes before the Europeans arrived in numbers: the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians occupy the whole Saint-Lawrence Valley, from Cornwall to the Ïle aux Coudres (other maps suggest that the Iroquoians were present as far East as Gaspé, but this is disputed). The Smithsonian map is also found, I think, in Duane Champagne’s The Native American Almanac of 1994. Jacques Cartier thus met “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians” (sometimes called “Iroquians” or “Laurentians” when speaking of their language). In 1534, he met some who were traveling in the Gaspé région (but who lived up stream). In 1535-36, Cartier visited their villages. As for the more accessible books on Native Americans, such as O. P. Dickason’s Canada’s First Nations, the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians are usually mentioned briefly (page 50).
The word “Iroquois” is normally reserved for the five (later six) nations of the Iroquois Confederacy which, in 1535, were not in contact with any Europeans. English-language and French-language specialists insist on distinguishing Iroquois and Iroquoian. Examples : Trigger and Pendergast, page 357, referenced in article “Canada,” and Richard Dominique and Jean-Guy Deschênes’ Cultures et société autochtones au Québec (pages 33). A bit like “Germanic languages” and “German”: only one refers to English. The same Iroquois / Iroquoian distinction is found in French and German (Iroquois / Iroquoien) (Irokese / Irokesisch).
The Iroquois/Iroquoian/Huron confusion stems mostly from centuries of ignorance. For example, Henry Biggar included in his The Voyages of Jacques Cartier, published in 1924, Sir Daniel Wilson’s text “The Huron-Iroquois of Canada” which he had written in 1884. It is a speculative and totally discredited article. Later, Hurtig invited the “Former Dominion Archivist” and long-retired W. Kaye Lamb to write the article about “Canada” for his Canadian Encyclopaedia of 1985.
The word “Huron” is also excluded. In 1535 they lived in the area north of Lake Ontario. Bruce Trigger, in his The Children of Aataentsic. A history of the Huron people to 1660 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1976, pp. 224-228), makes the Huron/Iroquoian distinction and suggests that the Saint Lawrence Iroquoians were probably killed by the Hurons or the Mohawks in the late 16th century in an attempt to control the trade routes with Europeans. The Saint-Lawrence Valley was thus becoming a very dangerous area and the Iroquoians seemingly paid the price. It would also appear that some of the Saint Lawrence Iroquoian survivors were probably taken in by the Hurons, the Mohawks and the Algonquins, by force or by mutual agreement. By 1603, Algonquins and Mohawks hunted in the Saint-Lawrence Valley and conducted raids, but neither had any permanent settlements.
Next, why use imagined phonetics: “kanata” or “kaná:ta”? This practice seems to have been encouraged by Heritage Canada’s web site (referenced) and Lamb’s article in Hurtig’s Enclyclopedia (un-referenced). The only reasonably reliable source about language(s) spoken in Stadacona and Hochelaga is the writings of Jacques Cartier (or perhaps those of his ghost writer). He wrote, in his Journal of the 1535-1536 voyage which was published in 1545: “Ilz appellent une ville: Canada”. The word Canada was also on the front cover. The Harleian Mappemonde of 1536 shows “Canada” (village, region and river). Any other graphical transcription of “Canada” is pure imagination, since no other sources exist. The journal of his earlier 1534 voyage, which was published several years later in Italian, gives no additional clues. His “vocabulary” tops out at 200 odd words.
Of course, the Mohawk and Oneida dialects of Iroquois have a similar word meaning “village” or “settlement” that it written “kanata” since the 19th or 20th century when latin script was first used to transcribe them. But whether or not one believes every detail of the linguistic observations of Jacques Cartier (his list may include words from two or three dialects, or languages, used by the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians), his list of Iroquoian vocabuary is quite distinct from modern-day Mohawk (there are mohawk dictionaries for those who like word puzzles). Furthermore, Mohawk may have evolved considerably since the 16th century, especially if Iroquoian refugees were accepted into their villages. A good reference on this matter is Marianne Mithon who clearly identifies separate “Laurentian” and “Mohawk” languages (Mithon, “Iroquoian”, in “The Languages of Native America”, Austin: Univeristy of Texas, 1979, pp. 133-212). Mithon, a linguist, is not however an historian.
There is thus no apparent reason for using 19th or 20th century phonetic transcription of Mohawk when writing 16th century Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian (or “Laurentian”). This error seemingly stems of the Iroquoian/Iroquois confusion (see above). One can however legitimately underline, when discussing the origins of the word Canada, that other related languages have a similar word meaning village (Mohawk: “kanata”; Huron: “andata”). But neither is a phonetic transcription of Canada as written by Jacques Cartier. Sorry. If the navigator (or his educated ghost writer) wrote “d”, he probably meant the sound “d”. If, however, French language texts of the 16th century all used “d” when today we use or pronouce “t” in their place, then it’s a new ball game. Anyone want to try proving that?
The only question remaining is whether the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians spoke several dialects or separate languages; this linguistic diversity stems from comparative analysis of the Cartier vocabulary (linguistic comparaisons with the other languages of the Iroquoian language group) and from the observation that a single native American language was never used in 15th century woodland America over such a large area, stretching hundreds of kilometers. Its probable that they spoke at least two or more dialects or languages. But we will never know.
Thus the expression “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian,” in the sigular, is included in the new text and “kanata” is excluded. Finally, the article on the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian language is titled “Laurentian language”. It might need changing, but the title follows the lead of the wiki articles on linguistics and most texts on Native American languages.
Of course, no original research is involved here. It's all copied from basic academic texts about the Iroquoian. However, if someone wants to use "kanata" or "huron-iroquois", they should find a reputable source (i.e. academic research) and not "topical" information from government web-sites, unsigned, that is not worthy as a reference for a Wiki. Its fun information, good for the kids, sometimes lively, but not serious. If it were serious, the civil servant who wrote it would have signed it or published it somewhere (like the statisticians of StatCanada who sign all their work).
Only one man wrote anything about the language of the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian. This last sentence is not original research: I stole it from Mithon who wrote: "All data from Laurentian are contained in two word lists recorded during the sixteenth century." (Mithon, page 140). Although she is not an historian, as a linguist specializing in Iroquoian languages, her opinion in this matter is probably definitive.
Finally, I also cut a short reference to the Mohawk name of the Saint-Lawrence River. Interesting, but not relevant here since the Mohawks were not in contact with Europeans in 1535. In any case, the full name is to be found in the article on the Saint Lawrence River. Joseph B 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
St. Lawrence Iroquoians are in the news. On Friday, August 18th 2006, the Premier of Québec issued a new release about a major discovery at Cap-Rouge: the Cartier-Roberval settlement of 1541-1543 was unearthed by archeologists. And they found bit of "Iroquoian" pottery, which of course helps to date the site (carbon-14 helped too). And the French-language section of CBC broadcast on 28 septembre 2003 a detailed report about the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and an archeological site in Saint-Anicet, Quebec. And Parks Canada's site about the Cartier-Brébeuf National Historic Site of Canada in Quebec City presents a rather detailed overview of the "St-Lawrence Iroquoians". The English-Language version is badly translated ("St. Lawrence Iroquois"), but it should be remarked that (1) the words "Huron" and "Mohawk" were not used and that (2) the French-Language version uses the correct name of "Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent".
So, recent stuff written by the Office of the Premier of Quebec, CBC-TV and Parks Canada seem to have a bit more weight than Canadian Heritage's unsigned blurb about a so-called "Huron-Iroquois" language that never existed. If they had written "an Iroquoian" language, it would have been technically correct since the Iroquoian language family includes everone: Huron, Mohawk, Oneida and Laurentians (or "St. Lawrence Iroquoians"). But they didn't, and it isn't.
Anyway, Trigger's article in the 15-volume "Handbook of North American Indians" trumps government PR and TV-journalism. Joseph B 11:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in here, but the repeated reverting of Joseph B's edits is rather silly. Joseph B has done good work researching the literature on Canada's name using scholarly sources and documenting them here, yet it seems that some editors feel a Heritage Canada web site trumps all modern scholarship. We delight when we find errors in Britannica, yet an unsourced government web site seemingly directed at children is sacrosanct????!!!! To recapitulate Joseph B's evidence from reliable sources:
We might want to discuss the "Huron-Iroquois" idea in the Name origin section, but clearly indicate thyat current scholarship considers it wrong. Luigizanasi 15:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no issue with the scholarly nature of James B's sources per se; but to argue, discount, and then remove official sources which are just as valid (one of which (Rayburn) is the prior chair of the standing committee on geographical name) is the height of hubris. That is silly. If editors cannot integrate other viewpoints/content while retaining cited information, and I might be guilty of that in recent editing (mea culpa), don't. 65.95.236.235 16:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Better references could of course be integrated into the article, but wholy discredited works needs to be dropped. Discussion here and elsewhere (article:Canada) covers this material. Why not discuss and confront the relative merit of sources here. An "info-sheet" from Canadian Heritage is not Wiki-worthy (when multivolume specialist encyclopedias are available, not to mention the works of linguists and others). Vandalism is, in part, reverting without discussion and explaination. Thus the considered use of the word "vandalism". Joseph B 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the only reference to "National Archives" comes from a 79 year old retired "Dominion archivist", librarian by profession, who wrote the "Canadian Enclyclopedia" article "Canada". His personal qualifications are obviously in doubt, since Native American specialists consider his theory to be totally without merit and completely at odds with archeological and linguistic evidence unearthed since 1950. In any case, would a reference from a deputy director of the Canadian Museum of Civilisation, written by someone educated in the later half of the 20th century, help? See James F. Pendergast, The Confusing Identities Attributed to Stadacona and Hochelaga, Journal of Canadian Studies, volume 32, number 4, Winter 1998, pages 149 to 167. I respectfully suggest that his arguments be adressed before reverting to a discretited version of the origin of the word "Canada" and use of "kanata". Primary sources (Jacques Cartier) and modern linguists (Mithun and Lounsbury) exclude this theory. The word was published as "canada" in 1545. Joseph B 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
When one of the many "sources" is simple wrong, a choice is necessary. No need to integrate "The Borg are living beings." and "The Borg are fictional characters". One is wrong (guess which).
In the case of this article, the Hurons did not live in the St. Lawrence River valley in the early 16th century. Georges Sioui, from the Huron village near Quebec City, has emphatically stated as much in his "For an Amerindian autohistory: an essay on the foundations of a social ethic", published in 1992. No source states otherwise (and user 65.92.172.20 / 142.150.134.52 has furnished no counter-argument or credible source).
As for the Mohawks, they lived in the Mohawk River valley (hence their name) in the 16th Century (have a look at the "Handbook of North American Indians", especially volume 15 and 17, which was edited by the Smithsonian Institution). The "Smithsonian", as it is called, is none other than the U.S. federal museum of natural history. And why not check out the writings of Marianne Mithun who, at least, speaks Mohawk and is the most reputable scholar on Iroquoian languages (but then again, as I have previously mentioned, she is not an historian).
Finally, on could go so far, as Mithun suggests, and insist that the inhabitants of Stadacona, Hochelaga and the other villages near Quebec City spoke several languages, in which case, one could surmise that the word "canada" comes from one of the languages spoken by these people(s). One could even underline (preferably elsewhere) that two other Iroquoian languages have a similar word for "village": Oneida and Mohawk (generally written "kanata" since the 19th Century). Thus, any reference to the Mohawk word for "big river", that starts with the same letters, is superfluous. Joseph B 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I found this comment buried in the article: 'modern Spanish word for "here" is "aqui". "Acá" is an archaic form. No es verdad... aqui and acá are just two different ways of saying the same thing. The thing about the Spaniards writing acá nada is just BS anyway, it wouldn't be written that way, either there'd be a comma in there, or it'd be written Aqui (or allí) no hay nada. It's pretty difficult to believe they would have written that, there was and is a big honkin' land mass there, last time I checked. Tubezone 03:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone has researched this or not, but another possible origin I found is the Spanish word Cañada which means glen. Although there is an ñ instead of a plain n, it could have undergone some form of change over time due to the increasing Anglophone population. Gorovich 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
After looking a bit more, it seems there are a few major glens and at least one place named Glen in Canada, which could also give this theory some weight. This could be similar to the Viking tale of Vinland which was also named after something the explorers first found, vines. Perhaps the Spanish explorers found glens and decided to name it Cañada. Gorovich 05:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is original research and has no bearing on the name for Canada. It is a coincidence. The Spanish had almost nothing or nothing to do with the exploration of the lands that became Canada, and I am certain you would not be able to find an authentic Spanish map or document with any evidence pointing to this theory. Hu 06:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I know that's what the dictionary says, but it's not that common, usually a glen would be arroyo or valle, although the Guia Roji lists 12 places in Mexico whose names start with cañada (vs. 20 that begin with arroyo and 30 that begin with valle) Also, the ñ has a y sound after it, it's pronounced "canyatha", and the spelling probably would've been corrupted in translation. Also, the Spaniards probably would've called the place pantana (for the muskeg swamps), or more likely given it a religious name, eg: the first place they landed in Mexico, they named Vera Cruz (True Cross). Any way , it sounds pretty implausible. Tubezone 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was just an idea. Never said it was the word of God or anything. Adiós. Gorovich 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There's currently a weasel-words tag on the Name origin section of this article. No doubt this is due to the opening sentence: "The name Canada is believed to have originated around 1535 from a Wendat (Huron-Iroquoian) word, kanata..." Do we really need to say "believed"? Almost every modern reference accepts that Canada came from kanata or a similar First Nations word. Most of the argument on this subject seems to be around which word from which First Nations language (see above). I think the references support changing this to a definitive statement, eliminating the "is believed to have from the above. I realize that NPOV requires us to include alternative theories, but we are permitted to give greater weight and prominence to the most commonly accepted version. - Eron 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the section to state that Canada came from kanata as this reflects the most broadly accepted view. Alternative theories can still be mentioned of course, though I would like to clean the aca nada paragraph up a bit once I can check a couple more references. - Eron 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the origin of Canada's name back to kanata. The official website of the Canadian government states that Canada was derived from kanata. Here is the link from the official website of the Canadian government. http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/education/prov_e.php
User:Scanadiense 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The Naming of Canada
Three explorers were hiking through a vast forest that would eventually become Canada.
"You know," said the first explorer, "we should name this vast forest we're hiking through."
"I know," said the second explorer. "We'll each pick a letter and then make a name out of that."
"Good idea," said the third explorer. "You go first."
"Okay," said the first explorer. "C, ay."
"My turn," said the second explorer. "N, ay."
Unfortunately, before the third explorer could choose a letter, a bear jumped out of the trees and killed and ate all three explorers. Eventually, some guy came along and named the country after his aunt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.130.118.170 ( talk) 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
The people of Nunavut, who also include Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun as official languages alongside English and French, use the word "Kanata" for Canada. I have added it at the beginning of the article (in the form of a typical language differentiation), but I did not put it in the infobox in the upper-right because I am not sure if this is legally recognized on the federal level in Canada. Anyone know any more on this, and if it's okay to add this in the infobox? -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody removed the syllabics ( Inuktitut: ᑲᓇᑕ Kanata) from the main page during the last rounds of the revert war regarding using "Dominion". Before restoring them, I would like to discuss it. The reason given for the omission is that Inuktitut is not an official language of Canada as a whole. However, it is an official language for Nunavut. Anybody else's thoughts? -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor made some argumentative edits not at all in an encyclopaedic style, that I have reverted, on the issue of "Dominion". The most important edit was:
We have addressed this argument before. I really don’t see why anyone thinks it makes sense. The 1867 Constitution defined the new country to be “One Dominion under the name Canada”, not “under the name the Dominion of Canada”. The argument above goes that the 1920 amendments changed the name from “Canada” to “the Dominion of Canada” by usage. (I do not accept this argument, and few others who have been involved in this on-going argument do.) But yet the proponents of this argument do not accept that the name was then changed back to “Canada” by subsequent usage, including in constitutional documents, beginning in the 1950s. It really seems that some monarchists/traditionalists are only interested in supporting their desire for the commonly-used (but not official) old name to be the “official” one. The evidence appears clear that “Canada” is the official name, and that “Dominion of Canada” is merely a legally-acceptable extension of this. Canada is a dominion, so it is not incorrect to describe it as “the Dominion of Canada”, but there remains no constitutional or legal document that says “the official name of the country is the Dominion of Canada”. The only definition of the name remains the one that I have cited above. Ground Zero | t 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The 1867 Constitution defined the new country to be “One Dominion under the name Canada”, not “under the name the Dominion of Canada”. There is no constitutional or legal document that says “the official name of the country is the Dominion of Canada”. Ground Zero | t 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So I'll take that as a "no", i.e., that you do not have any legal or constitutional document that says "the name [or long form name] of Canada is the Dominion of Canada". All you seem to be willing to offer is extrapolations that you have made yourself which qualify as original research. As you know, Wikipedia is not the place of original research. Regards, Ground Zero | t 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So once again, there is no document that sets out explicitly that there is a long form name -- it is only by convention. And so by the conventions of the last sixty years, when "Dominion of Canada" has not been used, the only name of the country is Canada. Ground Zero | t 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, it is interesting to see that no one has changed their minds one iota, and Wikipedia is still run by the votes of the ignorant mob. All that has changed, from my point-of-view, is that I really no longer care like I once did about the veracity of the content of Wikipedia. I just tell everyone I know that the articles on Wikipedia are inherently un-reliable.
ArmchairVexillologistDon
22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
AVD, please review WP:NPA. As you have been advised before, personal attacks are not welcome here. They are unnecessary, and do nothing to advance the debate. You have put forward an argument based on your own conclusions. That other people do not accept your argument does not make them ignorant. Please withdraw that personal attack, and apologize. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 10:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"... the ignorant mob...." Yes, that is a personal attack. Please withdraw the remark and apologise. You seem determined to demonstrate that you do not belong here. Please respect Wikipedia policies or consider resigning from Wikipedia. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Even though we had been through this argument before, I was willing to continue to discuss this with you. Because you are unwilling to discuss this civilly and within Wikipedia's rules, I'll end the discussion. Ground Zero | t 06:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The United Kingdom of Great Great (1707-1800), and the Dominion of Canada (founded 1867) have similiar "name-suppressor cabals" on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
Upon inspection, the astute observer will notice the parallel naming fucntions in the phrase(s),
However, BOTH long forms of United Kingdom of Great Great and the Dominion of Canada are viciously suppressed here at Wikipedia. Alas.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, you are not the sole judge of manners and etiquette here. I simple hold the position that the long form name(s) of Great Britain (1707-1800), and Canada (founded 1867) are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada, respectively.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, I am not arguing with you.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cropped 25 cent bill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cropped 20 dollar bill.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Text presently in article
JimWae wrote,
A self-governing Colony has Responsible Government (called a Province).
A self-Governing Dominion has Responsible Government and independence (called a Dominion).
Errata:
Dominion is correct, not dominion.
King of England is correct, not king of England.
Queen of England is correct, not not queen of England.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You miss my point - the article says dominion indicates status as a "self-governing colony" of the Empire-- JimWae 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is wrong still --
JimWae
03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The word "dominion" is only capitalized when referring to a specific dominion or at the beginning of a sentence, etc. Here's its entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica for example. [3]
Rule 4.20 in The Canadian style (the official styleguide from the Canadian Dept. of the Secretary of State) states: "A generic term such as city, county, state or province is lower-cased when precedes the proper name or stands alone, unless it is used in a corporate sense." The word dominion is also such a generic term, like the words kingdom, principality, duchy, empire, etc. are.
Jonathan David Makepeace 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Don, your opinion is not fact. And since you are prepared to insult other editors and disregard Wikipedia policies, your opinion doesn't count for anything here. Ground Zero | t 15:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not POV to point out that a particluar claim is one made by some sources. It IS POV to state as bald fact that "Dominion remains the official title of Canada". An on-line quiz is not a legal document, nor is a Canadian Encyclopedia article (btw, written by someone with an agenda that is anti-republican). There is NO legislative nor judical decree that says that dominion ever even WAS an official title, nor is there one that says it still is. This topic is an item of debate here & elsewhere, & to come down on one side or another is to violoate NPOV. Saying that some sources make a claim does not take a position on the claim, saying the claim is fact does -- JimWae 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The Canadian Encyclopedia reference is disputed, so the "according to some sources" reference is appropriate. there remains, after two years of debate over this on this page, no legislative or regulatory citation for a long form name of Canada. User:ArmchairDon above has constructed an argument for a long form name that constitutes original research, which violates WP:NOR. (Of course, he has violated lots of other Wikipedia policies, so his contributions here are not in any way useful.) So there is no rationale for having this article state that the "Dominion of Canada" is an official long form name. Ground Zero | t 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help): "Dominion continues to be part of the official title of this country..."Hodgetts does not say that the "Dominion of Canada" is an official name of Canada, only that "dominion" remains Canada's title. I do not dispute that Canada is a dominion -- the Constitution says so. The Constitution and other legal documents do not say, however, that the "Dominion of Canada" is an official name. I respect Forsey and Rayburn's contributions in their fields, but why are we relying on their views? Why is there is no official document that supports the contention? This is why I think it is appropriate to say that "some sources state that the Dominion of Canada is an official name of Canada", but it is incorrect for Wikipedia to assert that "the Dominion of Canada is an official name of Canada" until a Constitutional or legal document is cited. Ground Zero | t 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I, ArmchairVexillologistDon, will re-state my position,
The logic is clear ... if Canada (post-1867) is the only "name" allowed on Wikipedia, then it follows that Great Britain (1707-1800) is the only "name" allowed on Wikipedia as well. BOTH articles should be made EQUALLY STUPID. ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Original Research? You seem to bring out this when someone suggests something that you disagree with. How can the Great Britain (1707-1800) article stand as it is, whilst the Canada (post-1867) article is held to a DIFFERENT STANDARD? BOTH articles should be made EQUALLY STUPID. ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello 142.150.134.55. That is not my intent. Frankly, this place is run simply on votes. Truth here at Wikipedia does not count ... only votes . Alas. ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello JGGardiner, thank you for your kind and thoughtful response, I appreciate it alot.
I respect your opinion that my comparasion of the Treaty of Union 1707 for Great Britain to that of the British North America Act 1867 for Canada, you view as Original Research.
Question: Why is assigning Canada as the offical name of the country not Original Research? ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The BNA Act sez:
You see -- statutory declaration of the name of the country being "Canada", and not anything else. So Don, please take your personal attacks and original research elsewhere. Ground Zero | t 11:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is the name. The only name that is established by statute. There is no other. Please respect wikipedia policies on no personal attacks and no original research. Ground Zero | t 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again you have demonstrated that you are incapable of participating civilly and productively in a discussion here. Ground Zero | t 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that there are three sources for a country's legal names:
1) It's constating documents. In Canada's case these include not only the various Constitution Acts but also a variety of imperial statutes, regulations, proclamation and--most importantly for this discussion--conventions.
2) Its foreign ministry, which provides the official forms of names under which it enters in treaties and conventions with other nations.
3) The relevant rules of court determining the proper style of cause under which the sovreign authority sues or can be sued.
Under 1), no primary constitutional document has ever used the form of words, "Dominion of Canada." However, I am in no doubt that a constitutional convention emerged, establishing the validity of that name from the late 19th century until the middle of the 20th century. That being said, there is a strong argument that the principal of disuse is applicable to such a convention.
2) The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade maintains that the only official form of name for the country is, "Canada." At any given time, a country's foreign ministry provides an authoritative and definitive statement in International Law of the country's name. Canada enters into all treaties under the name and style of, "Canada."
When the United Kingdom undertook Canada's external relations, the style "Dominion of Canada," was used--for example, the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty [4]. The style appears within the text (but not in the titles) of Canada's early international instruments--for example, the 1925 Supplementary Convention Between Canada and The United States of America to Provide for Extradition on Account of Crimes or Offences Committed Against the Laws for the Suppression of the Traffic in Narcotics, [5]
By 1940, this had disappeared--see Convention between Canada and The United States of America Providing for Emergency Regulation of the Level of Rainy Lake and of the Level of other Boundary Waters in the Rainy Lake Watershed. [6]. By 1945, Canada was entering into conventions not in the person of the King, but as the Government of Canada: Convention between Canada and The United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation (Succession Duties) [7]
Since 1945, Canada has always acceded to international agreements (whether treaties, conventions or otherwise) as,"Canada," in the person of the, "Government of Canada."
3) At present, the Federal Government appears before Canadian courts variously as: "Her Majesty the Queen," in criminal matters; "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada," in property matters; and "Canada (title of appropriate minister) in administrative law matters.
Canada has always appeared before international tribunals (such as the ICJ) as Canada. Given that Canada was beginning the disuse of the "dominion" style by the time most of these organs came into existence, that is hardly surprising.
It is unrealistic to suggest that the style, "Dominion of Canada," has never had standing--but at the same time, it is clear that the contemporary use of the style is obsolete and incorrect. Visagrunt 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the two sources in the text which refer to "Dominion" as being the country's official "title", are there any examples or definitons of title being used in this context? I have never heard title being used in this context.-- Gregalton 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Christ-on-a-Stick! Here we go again! Argh.
Style: means taken as a collection of individual words (separate pieces).
e.g. United States of America its style is "United" , "States" , "of" , "America" (i.e., the "pieces" are the "collection of individual words", each word is one piece).
Title: means taken as a unit (one inseparable piece).
e.g. United States of America its title is "United States of America" (i.e., there is only one piece, the whole thing is one piece).
Style and Title: means the long-form name of the entity.
e.g. The Style and Title of America is the United States of America (i.e., the country's long-form name).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok GregAlton, try this one on for size eh,
For our American bretheren (from your family in the British Commonwealth of Nations) here is an example of Style and Title denoting the long-form name of the State of Maine (whose Rank is a State of the US) within the United States of America
Constitution of the State of Maine
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
Preamble
We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.
Therefore we have the following,
long-form name: State of Maine (ie., Style and Title means long-form name).
short-form name: Maine
So GregAlton, is the Constitution of the State of Maine a reference that will satisfy you eh?
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. No, the term Style and Title is very plain. In fact, I contend nothing, I state that plainly Style and Title mean un-ambigiously long-form name.
Please review the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Specifically Article I.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1
Article I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Therefore, the long-form name was denoted as the United States of America.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton.
Canada is a short-form name.
A long-form name can not be the same as a short-form name.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No GregAlton, you are incorrect.
long-form name: none (i.e., none submitted)
short-form name: blah.
A single word is by definition a short-form name.
Additionally, a long-form name can not be the same as a short-form name.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. I have given you a rational explaination of the entries in the country name database. I have spent a considerable amount of effort and time to explain to you the intricacies of long-form names, and short-form names of countries. I do not appreciate your flippant dismissals and demands for more explainations. I have given you enough to understand this subject.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 10:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. First-off ... stop putting words in my mouth, I do not like that.
The UN says that Canada is the long-form name?
Show me.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hogg is only expressing an opinion. He is parroting the opinion of Wheare. Both opinions of Hogg and Wheare are un-supported by external references. No referenced materials back them up ... nothing.
Consider the Act of Union 1707 (specifically Article I)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707
Article I
That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.
and compare this to the British North America Act 1867 (specifically Clause 3) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_Act%2C_1867
Clause 3
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.
Therefore by the tenets of Comparative Constitutional Law we have,
One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain (1707-1800)
One Dominion under the Name of Canada (post-1867)
If one aserts that only the short-form name of Canada is valid,
then only the short-form name of Great Britain is valid and NO OTHER designations can be used ... RIGHT?
In other words, Name(s) like Kingdom of Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain are in-valid ... RIGHT?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. A reference for my reasoning, or a Comparative Constituional Law book?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. So everything that is un-referenced is original research?
If so does every sentence need a reference citation?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 03:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. I shall be plain. People whip out original research at their convenience when they want to discredit or supress something they find "inconvenient" to their "pet-theories. Frankly, I have given you my analysis, and whether you believe it or not ... I could really careless.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. Please READ the discussion BEFORE you make flippant comments. My "reasoning" does not support the assertion that only the short-form name of Canada is valid for the country. I firmly have argued that the long-form name of the Dominion of Canada is valid for the country.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 22:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. I am not changing the subject. I am however frustrated with you. Very frustrated.
References to the long-form name the Dominion of Canada
(1). British North America Acts (1871-1947, the Dominion of Canada is explicitly written in these amendments to the 1867 original).
(2). Proclamation of the Ensigns Amorial of the Dominion of Canada, November 19, 1921
(3). The Statute of Westminster 1931 (it explicitly cites the Dominion of Canada several times as the long-form name of the country).
There RobHar ... references enough for you eh?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone (at least I am not) is disagreeing with you that the name of Canada used to be "Dominion of Canada" (before say the 1960s), so the fact that you list references from before then is not necessarily useful. In fact, in my previous post I asked specifically for references that said that the name of canada is currently "Dominion of Canada". Now your references say that the name used to be "Dominion of Canada". So if you had a reference that said that this fact has never changed that would be good, unfortunately all you have is your reasoning that it hasn't changed. Now I would be being a complete dick if I was just making you prove it was still the name of Canada just for the hell of it. But that is not what I am doing. I am saying that there's a lot of current data that says that the full name is just "Canada" (see for example the United Nations, the CIA factbook, etc. I also add another reference below). In light of this data, I believe it is necessary to justify the claim that "Dominion of Canada" is currently the full name of Canada.
Here's another reference. And I've used comparison with entries from other countries. Here is a reference supporting "Canada" is the "full name" of Canada. It is from the people at the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) (data available here [13]), the official US government board whose sole job it is to figure out exactly what everything is called. Each entry has a "Name Type" and a "Short Form", a "Generic" part (the "descriptive part of the full name"), and a "Full-Name" (see [14] for these descriptions). There are two entries for Canada, the first one's "name type" is "N" for "BGN Standard", the second one's "name type" is "V" for "Variant or alternate name", and the full entries are as follows:
*Name Type: BGN standard *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Canada
and
*Name Type: Variant or alternate name *Short Form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Dominion of Canada
(Above "<empty>" refers to a physically empty space in the database). So it seems like this (official US) database says the full name is "Canada" as opposed to this being simply the short form. And as a variant, one could say "Dominion of Canada", but this is some sort of alternate name. To explore further what the various parts of an entry mean, let's look at two other entries. First Luxembourg, then the perhaps more à propos UK.
Luxembourg has three entries:
*Name Type: Conventional *Language: English *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
also,
*Name Type: BGN standard *Language: French *Short form: Luxembourg *Generic: Grand-Duché *Full name: Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
and a variant
*Name Type: Variant or alternate name *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Luxemburg
So its full name is "Grand-Duché de Luxembourg", its short name is "Luxembourg", the "generic part" (perhaps one might say title) is "Grand-Duché". One could, in English call it "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg". And then there's a different spelling, perhaps some sort of original german spelling as opposed to a gallicized -ourg ending.
And now, the United Kingdom, which has three entries:
*Name Type: BGN standard *Short form: United Kingdom *Generic: <empty> *Full name: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
also,
*Name Type: Variant or alternate name *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Great Britain
and
*Name Type: Variant or alternate name *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Britain
Now my conclusion from this data is that the full name of Canada is "Canada", and the full name of the UK is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". And I don't think it's that the US disagrees with your reasoning, I think its just that they, instead of reasoning, asked the relevant authorities. As I stated above, empirical evidence is stronger than theoretically reasoning.
I'm sorry you are frustrated with me, but it just seems like "Canada" is the full name. If you have a problem with my behaviour on this talk page, I encourage you to report me to some form of administrative committee that deals with such things. RobHar ( talk) 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. You have read about "the growing unrest about the term
Dominion amoungst all
Canadians". I have read about that as well. The question is do you believe such an assertion? I personally do not believe that assertion. I feel that it is has been concocted over time by a variety of Academics who simply did not like the term
Dominion as it cemented our link to the Constitutional-Monarchy.
A long-form name and a short-form name can not be the same. The shortest designation is a single word, thus a short-form name is by definition a single word.
long-form name: none (i.e., none submitted to database)
short-form name: Canada
Therefore, we have developed a practise of the usage of the short-form name of Canada.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
*legal long-form name: Dominion of Canada *legal short-form name: Canada *de facto long-form name: Canada *de facto short-form name: none
or
*legal long-form name: Dominion of Canada *legal short-form name: Canada *de facto long-form name: none *de facto short-form name: Canada
Hello RobHar.
long-form name: Dominion of Canada (supressed by the Government since 1950s)
short-form name: Canada
Only a long-form name is an offical name. The short-form name is un-offically derived from the offical long-form name. So ... no ... I do not agree that Canada is an offical name. I say again, we have developed a practise of the usage of the (un-offical) short-form name of Canada.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. I will simply re-state my opinion.
long-form name: Dominion of Canada (supressed by the Government since 1950s)
short-form name: Canada
Only a long-form name is an offical name. The short-form name is un-offically derived from the offical long-form name. So ... no ... I do not agree that Canada is an offical name. I say again, we have developed a practise of the usage of the (un-offical) short-form name of Canada.
I would like to thank you RobHar, for keeping an open mind to the points that I tried to raise to you, during the discussion. I appreciate very much you considering them.
Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"Name" is too ambigious to use in a legal document without context.
For a person we have,
First Name: the first given name,
Middle Name: the second, third, etc., given names (not always necessary),
Last Name: the family name (ie., the Surname),
Full Name: the complete name (i.e., First-Middle-Last Name all put together).
For a person, the Full Name (i.e., long-form name) is defined as their legal name.
For a country we have,
long-form name: the complete name of a country (typical offically adopted within a constitution)
short-form name: the partial name of country (typical un-offically derived from the long-form name).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. Typology? The study of text ... No.
Style and Title mean long-form name of a country (or sub-country entity).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
RESPONSES to GregAlton
GregAlton wrote,
Response 1:
Greg ... don't be an arse.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Response 2:
(more to come)
Response 3:
GregAlton, you are speaking gibberish. Please re-phrase your point.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
4. You have cited a number of primary texts, including the Constitution Act, 1871. I have just checked that source, and some of the others. You are correct, they do use the full term "Dominion of Canada." They do not, however, state anywhere that I can find that this constitutes the name, full, legal, short, or otherwise. They simply use it. The BNA (1867) states simply "One Dominion under the Name of Canada." That seems rather unambiguous as to the "name". Again, this is not proof that Canada is the full legal name, but it is to the point. Could you please provide the specific text of your many sources that says the name is Canada (as opposed to just using the term)? Again, I could argue the opposite point, that by comparables, saying a) Canada is and was a dominion, and b) referring to Dominion of Canada is therefore not an incorrect form, and c) does not necessarily mean that the official name is Dominion of Canada, anymore than Repubic of Ukraine (technically accurate) is the official name of that country, which just happens to be a Republic named Ukraine. Ultimately, this is the same issue as above: interesting ideas lacking references.
Response 4:
(more to come)
Response 5:
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/dominion-status-proclammation-1907
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/dominion-status-gazette-notice-1907
(more to come)
Hello GregAlton,
Here is an example of Style and Title denoting the long-form name of the State of Maine (whose Rank is a State of the US) within the United States of America
Constitution of the State of Maine
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
Preamble
We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.
Therefore we have the following,
long-form name: State of Maine (ie., Style and Title means long-form name).
short-form name: Maine
So GregAlton, is the Constitution of the State of Maine a reference that will satisfy you eh?
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. No, the term Style and Title is very plain. In fact, I contend nothing, I state that plainly Style and Title mean un-ambigiously long-form name.
Please review the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Specifically Article I.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1
Article I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Therefore, the long-form name was denoted as the United States of America.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 08:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. The term Style and Title means long-form name. If you willfully frain "intellectual-blindness" to this, it is not of my concern. What is my concern is that if the long-form name of the Dominion of Canada founded on July 1, 1867, as a federal Dominion is going to be supressed, I am going to point out that the short-form name of just Canada is not an offical one.
Canada is NOT an offical designation, it is an un-offical short-form name. Countries can only be known by their offical long-form names.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read the passage from Peter Hogg's book, and he does NOT actually say that. Please read it again, and more carefully this time eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"In the 1930s, the federal government decided to switch the official name of the country from the Dominon of Canada to Canada."
Hello Quizimodo.
Here is an example of Style and Title denoting the long-form name of the State of Maine (whose Rank is a State of the US) within the United States of America
Constitution of the State of Maine
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
Preamble
We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.
Therefore we have the following,
long-form name: State of Maine (ie., Style and Title means long-form name).
short-form name: Maine
using the Constitution of the State of Maine as a reference.
Next up, the term Style and Title very plainly means un-ambigiously long-form name.
Please review the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Specifically Article I.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1
Article I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Therefore, the long-form name was denoted as the United States of America.
The implication to the article in question (i.e., Canada's Name) is that its long-form name should be referenced as the Dominion of Canada founded on July 1, 1867, as a
federal
Dominion.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
References to a "collection of huts" and other such definitions of the word "canada" are spurious. There is but one source for the meaning of the word "canada" as used by the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, namely Jacques Cartier's travel log:
He (or his ghost writer) wrote: "Ilz appellent une ville canada," which roughly translates as "They call a village canada." The only question is whether "ville" meant "village" or "city" in the 16th Century. In any case, collection of huts is pure 21st Century imagination at its best. As for a description of a St. Lawrence Iroquoian village of the Quebec City region, we have nothing to go on. Cartier described Hochelega, near Montreal, but not Stadacona, near Quebec City. Neither has ever been located. Joseph B ( talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Quizimodo might try to put at least one sentence defending his/her thesis that "canada" meant "collection of huts" in the language spoken by the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. Cartier's Recit, which is a primary source, states otherwise. The rest is pure speculation. Joseph B ( talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles on the St. Lawrence Iroquoians have not been seriously challenged or radically changed for well over a year, and several contributors have improved them. Here are the main sources on this subject (only the first is available on the net, however):
The first (primary) source dates from 1545. Since the St. Lawrence Iroquoians vanished by the time the next European showed up, the distinction between primary and secondary sources takes on considerable importance with regards to the meaning of the word 'canada' in Laurentian, the language spoken at Stadacona in the 16th century. Our entire understanding of this language boils downs to two lists of vocabulary in the travels logs of Jacques Cartier. The foremost expert on Iroquoian languages, Marianne Mithun, has stated this emphatically in her published works on the language of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. Thus, any statement that the word 'canada' means "collection of huts" contradicts the foremost authority on Iroquoian languages, who quotes the only known primary source, and could even be considered to be a racist insult. If the Stadaconans did live like their cousins in Hochelaga, they would have lived in longhouses which are a far cry from "huts". Joseph B ( talk) 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Referenced facts with complete quotes from scholarly sources are provided. Please do not Blank these again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period Nov 2005 – July 2008. 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. |
What does "Stadacona" means? Etymologically at least... Its important to make the etymological meaning of Canada more complete.
Does CDN stand for "Canada DominioN"? -- Henrygb 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I put "Dominion of Canada" in the search box intending to get to Canada, but I was redirected to this article. Just curious, is there a particular reason/Wikipedian precedent as for why "Dominion of Canada" redirects here and not Canada? Thanks. Chef Ketone 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! For our collective information and in summary regarding Canada's name and dominion: I've recently added a reference from a titular book by Alan Rayburn (a prior executive secretary of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names), Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names (which I dredged up from my library recently), that crystallises everything regarding this issue rather succinctly (with emphasis retained). On p. 18, Rayburn found that:
I think that's it for me regarding this. Au revoir! E Pluribus Anthony 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Every map I have ever seen has labled Canada as The Dominion of Canada. I was always under the impression that that was its full name. But, just as we don't call "Billy Bob Smith Jr.", "Billy Bob Smith Junior", but rather refer to him as "Bill", "Billy", "mr. Smith", and on the rare occasion "Sir", we refer to The Dominion of Canada, as it is our friend, not as "The Dominion in Canada", we call it "Canada". However, as this is an Encyclopedia, meant for full names(I certaintly would not want an encyclopedia to be on first name basis with me), it would be best to use "The Dominion of Canada. Samsomite
This is a very old arguement. I support the position that the long form name of the country formed on July 1, 1867, was and is today the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. The overwhelming majority (i.e., the consensus) of people here hold the view that the only name of the country founded on July 1, 1867, is simply just Canada. I support the position that this "constitutional literalist" interpretation of letter of the constitution in fact violates the spirit of constitution that the Fathers of Confederation intended (i.e., the Fathers of Confederation intent was to designate that the long form name of the country as the Dominion of Canada).
If one carefully inspects all of the relavent amendments to the British North America Act for the first 50 years of this country's existance (i.e., 1867-1917) one will note the explicit inclusion of the long form full name of the Dominion of Canada (and correspondingly use of Canada as a short form name) in every salient document.
The term Style and Title (or just Style, or Title alone) does in fact mean "the long form name". This is borne out when one studies the rules of the Order of Precedence (literally meaning "who proceeds first").
The Constitution of the Dominion of Canada was explicitly modeled on the Constitutions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921), and amended via the model of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (since 1921). To this end if one uses the doctrine of Comparative Common Law one may note the following important Constitutional Clauses,
Upon insection of The Treaty (or Act) of Union 1707
Article I. That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon the first day of May next ensuing date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain, and that the ensigns armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint, and the crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit, and be used in all flags, banners and ensigns, both at sea and land.
Article II. That the succession to the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and the dominions thereunto belonging, after Her Most Sacred Majesty, ...
Article III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain.
Therefore argument proceeds as follows, if the long form name of Great Britain in 1707 was taken to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain, then similarly the long form name of Canada in 1867 was taken to be the Dominion of Canada.
70.30.193.143 19:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ground Zero. It is nice to hear from you indeed. As per the content of Article Pages, I shall not engage in edit wars. They are fruitless, and it ends up in me being banned. As per Talk Pages, I shall express my opinions as I see fit, within the Wikipedia guidelines. If you review my above words they are well within the guidelines of "acceptable conduct".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArmchairVexillologistDon
PS, could you please UNLOCK my UserPage, and my User-TalkPage. They are still blocked as the person who locked them has left Wikipedia. I would be most grateful if you, or someone else with Administrator Powers could do me the courtesy.
Howdy Saxifrage :) Thank you for the kind and friendly "Welcome Back". I appreciate it alot indeed. Thanks as well for the compliment on my research skills. I can be a "wee-bit of a Ferret" in that department eh. Take care, and best wishes, and see you around ole Wikipedia eh :)
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that this be moved to Name of Canada for consistency and formality. see Names of Japan, Names of Korea, Names of China, Etymology of India for similar articles. -- Jiang 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I support Etymology of Canada or even Names for Canada over my original proposal. but to emphasize the single term for the country, we should use parenthesis such as in Canada (name) or Canada (etymology). "Canada's name" sounds like some book or TV show... -- Jiang 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with "Etymology of Canada". This article covers more than just the derivation of Canada -- it covers other names that were proposed, and the issue of what was to come before the name -- Dominion, Kingdom, etc. "Etymology would be just plain incorrect as the name of this article. I don't obejct to the other proposals. Ground Zero | t 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
One major difference between this and the other articles is that most of this article is Debating the name of canada whether Dominion of canada or just Canada is the correct name, with the others just added in as a bit of other info.
Thank the Fathers of Confederation for choosing Canada! GBC 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree.
-G
The title Dominion has been dropped by Canada due to its relation with monarchy and aggravating Quebec nationalists. I wonder if anyone has recognized Canada as officially the "Confederation of Canada" or as I have heard the title "Canadian Confederation" used before, similar to Russian Federation. Could this be the unrecognized official name of Canada?
The reference to a Heritage Canada Web brochure is not a valid source for the origin of the word Canada. A better source would have been a run-of-the-mill dictionary of Indians names, such as Bernard Assiniwi’s Lexique des noms indiens du Canada, or even Hurtig’s Canadian Enclyclopedia, but even such sources are not much better.
A distinction is clearly made in the academic literature between the inhabitants of the St-Lawrence Valley, the “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians,” and the Iroquois and Huron living near Lake Ontario. In the Smithsonian’s “Handbook of the North American Indians” – which has perhaps 10 or 15 thousand pages – there is a revealing map (volume 15, page ix) of Indian tribes before the Europeans arrived in numbers: the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians occupy the whole Saint-Lawrence Valley, from Cornwall to the Ïle aux Coudres (other maps suggest that the Iroquoians were present as far East as Gaspé, but this is disputed). The Smithsonian map is also found, I think, in Duane Champagne’s The Native American Almanac of 1994. Jacques Cartier thus met “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians” (sometimes called “Iroquians” or “Laurentians” when speaking of their language). In 1534, he met some who were traveling in the Gaspé région (but who lived up stream). In 1535-36, Cartier visited their villages. As for the more accessible books on Native Americans, such as O. P. Dickason’s Canada’s First Nations, the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians are usually mentioned briefly (page 50).
The word “Iroquois” is normally reserved for the five (later six) nations of the Iroquois Confederacy which, in 1535, were not in contact with any Europeans. English-language and French-language specialists insist on distinguishing Iroquois and Iroquoian. Examples : Trigger and Pendergast, page 357, referenced in article “Canada,” and Richard Dominique and Jean-Guy Deschênes’ Cultures et société autochtones au Québec (pages 33). A bit like “Germanic languages” and “German”: only one refers to English. The same Iroquois / Iroquoian distinction is found in French and German (Iroquois / Iroquoien) (Irokese / Irokesisch).
The Iroquois/Iroquoian/Huron confusion stems mostly from centuries of ignorance. For example, Henry Biggar included in his The Voyages of Jacques Cartier, published in 1924, Sir Daniel Wilson’s text “The Huron-Iroquois of Canada” which he had written in 1884. It is a speculative and totally discredited article. Later, Hurtig invited the “Former Dominion Archivist” and long-retired W. Kaye Lamb to write the article about “Canada” for his Canadian Encyclopaedia of 1985.
The word “Huron” is also excluded. In 1535 they lived in the area north of Lake Ontario. Bruce Trigger, in his The Children of Aataentsic. A history of the Huron people to 1660 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1976, pp. 224-228), makes the Huron/Iroquoian distinction and suggests that the Saint Lawrence Iroquoians were probably killed by the Hurons or the Mohawks in the late 16th century in an attempt to control the trade routes with Europeans. The Saint-Lawrence Valley was thus becoming a very dangerous area and the Iroquoians seemingly paid the price. It would also appear that some of the Saint Lawrence Iroquoian survivors were probably taken in by the Hurons, the Mohawks and the Algonquins, by force or by mutual agreement. By 1603, Algonquins and Mohawks hunted in the Saint-Lawrence Valley and conducted raids, but neither had any permanent settlements.
Next, why use imagined phonetics: “kanata” or “kaná:ta”? This practice seems to have been encouraged by Heritage Canada’s web site (referenced) and Lamb’s article in Hurtig’s Enclyclopedia (un-referenced). The only reasonably reliable source about language(s) spoken in Stadacona and Hochelaga is the writings of Jacques Cartier (or perhaps those of his ghost writer). He wrote, in his Journal of the 1535-1536 voyage which was published in 1545: “Ilz appellent une ville: Canada”. The word Canada was also on the front cover. The Harleian Mappemonde of 1536 shows “Canada” (village, region and river). Any other graphical transcription of “Canada” is pure imagination, since no other sources exist. The journal of his earlier 1534 voyage, which was published several years later in Italian, gives no additional clues. His “vocabulary” tops out at 200 odd words.
Of course, the Mohawk and Oneida dialects of Iroquois have a similar word meaning “village” or “settlement” that it written “kanata” since the 19th or 20th century when latin script was first used to transcribe them. But whether or not one believes every detail of the linguistic observations of Jacques Cartier (his list may include words from two or three dialects, or languages, used by the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians), his list of Iroquoian vocabuary is quite distinct from modern-day Mohawk (there are mohawk dictionaries for those who like word puzzles). Furthermore, Mohawk may have evolved considerably since the 16th century, especially if Iroquoian refugees were accepted into their villages. A good reference on this matter is Marianne Mithon who clearly identifies separate “Laurentian” and “Mohawk” languages (Mithon, “Iroquoian”, in “The Languages of Native America”, Austin: Univeristy of Texas, 1979, pp. 133-212). Mithon, a linguist, is not however an historian.
There is thus no apparent reason for using 19th or 20th century phonetic transcription of Mohawk when writing 16th century Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian (or “Laurentian”). This error seemingly stems of the Iroquoian/Iroquois confusion (see above). One can however legitimately underline, when discussing the origins of the word Canada, that other related languages have a similar word meaning village (Mohawk: “kanata”; Huron: “andata”). But neither is a phonetic transcription of Canada as written by Jacques Cartier. Sorry. If the navigator (or his educated ghost writer) wrote “d”, he probably meant the sound “d”. If, however, French language texts of the 16th century all used “d” when today we use or pronouce “t” in their place, then it’s a new ball game. Anyone want to try proving that?
The only question remaining is whether the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians spoke several dialects or separate languages; this linguistic diversity stems from comparative analysis of the Cartier vocabulary (linguistic comparaisons with the other languages of the Iroquoian language group) and from the observation that a single native American language was never used in 15th century woodland America over such a large area, stretching hundreds of kilometers. Its probable that they spoke at least two or more dialects or languages. But we will never know.
Thus the expression “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian,” in the sigular, is included in the new text and “kanata” is excluded. Finally, the article on the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian language is titled “Laurentian language”. It might need changing, but the title follows the lead of the wiki articles on linguistics and most texts on Native American languages.
Of course, no original research is involved here. It's all copied from basic academic texts about the Iroquoian. However, if someone wants to use "kanata" or "huron-iroquois", they should find a reputable source (i.e. academic research) and not "topical" information from government web-sites, unsigned, that is not worthy as a reference for a Wiki. Its fun information, good for the kids, sometimes lively, but not serious. If it were serious, the civil servant who wrote it would have signed it or published it somewhere (like the statisticians of StatCanada who sign all their work).
Only one man wrote anything about the language of the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian. This last sentence is not original research: I stole it from Mithon who wrote: "All data from Laurentian are contained in two word lists recorded during the sixteenth century." (Mithon, page 140). Although she is not an historian, as a linguist specializing in Iroquoian languages, her opinion in this matter is probably definitive.
Finally, I also cut a short reference to the Mohawk name of the Saint-Lawrence River. Interesting, but not relevant here since the Mohawks were not in contact with Europeans in 1535. In any case, the full name is to be found in the article on the Saint Lawrence River. Joseph B 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
St. Lawrence Iroquoians are in the news. On Friday, August 18th 2006, the Premier of Québec issued a new release about a major discovery at Cap-Rouge: the Cartier-Roberval settlement of 1541-1543 was unearthed by archeologists. And they found bit of "Iroquoian" pottery, which of course helps to date the site (carbon-14 helped too). And the French-language section of CBC broadcast on 28 septembre 2003 a detailed report about the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and an archeological site in Saint-Anicet, Quebec. And Parks Canada's site about the Cartier-Brébeuf National Historic Site of Canada in Quebec City presents a rather detailed overview of the "St-Lawrence Iroquoians". The English-Language version is badly translated ("St. Lawrence Iroquois"), but it should be remarked that (1) the words "Huron" and "Mohawk" were not used and that (2) the French-Language version uses the correct name of "Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent".
So, recent stuff written by the Office of the Premier of Quebec, CBC-TV and Parks Canada seem to have a bit more weight than Canadian Heritage's unsigned blurb about a so-called "Huron-Iroquois" language that never existed. If they had written "an Iroquoian" language, it would have been technically correct since the Iroquoian language family includes everone: Huron, Mohawk, Oneida and Laurentians (or "St. Lawrence Iroquoians"). But they didn't, and it isn't.
Anyway, Trigger's article in the 15-volume "Handbook of North American Indians" trumps government PR and TV-journalism. Joseph B 11:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in here, but the repeated reverting of Joseph B's edits is rather silly. Joseph B has done good work researching the literature on Canada's name using scholarly sources and documenting them here, yet it seems that some editors feel a Heritage Canada web site trumps all modern scholarship. We delight when we find errors in Britannica, yet an unsourced government web site seemingly directed at children is sacrosanct????!!!! To recapitulate Joseph B's evidence from reliable sources:
We might want to discuss the "Huron-Iroquois" idea in the Name origin section, but clearly indicate thyat current scholarship considers it wrong. Luigizanasi 15:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no issue with the scholarly nature of James B's sources per se; but to argue, discount, and then remove official sources which are just as valid (one of which (Rayburn) is the prior chair of the standing committee on geographical name) is the height of hubris. That is silly. If editors cannot integrate other viewpoints/content while retaining cited information, and I might be guilty of that in recent editing (mea culpa), don't. 65.95.236.235 16:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Better references could of course be integrated into the article, but wholy discredited works needs to be dropped. Discussion here and elsewhere (article:Canada) covers this material. Why not discuss and confront the relative merit of sources here. An "info-sheet" from Canadian Heritage is not Wiki-worthy (when multivolume specialist encyclopedias are available, not to mention the works of linguists and others). Vandalism is, in part, reverting without discussion and explaination. Thus the considered use of the word "vandalism". Joseph B 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the only reference to "National Archives" comes from a 79 year old retired "Dominion archivist", librarian by profession, who wrote the "Canadian Enclyclopedia" article "Canada". His personal qualifications are obviously in doubt, since Native American specialists consider his theory to be totally without merit and completely at odds with archeological and linguistic evidence unearthed since 1950. In any case, would a reference from a deputy director of the Canadian Museum of Civilisation, written by someone educated in the later half of the 20th century, help? See James F. Pendergast, The Confusing Identities Attributed to Stadacona and Hochelaga, Journal of Canadian Studies, volume 32, number 4, Winter 1998, pages 149 to 167. I respectfully suggest that his arguments be adressed before reverting to a discretited version of the origin of the word "Canada" and use of "kanata". Primary sources (Jacques Cartier) and modern linguists (Mithun and Lounsbury) exclude this theory. The word was published as "canada" in 1545. Joseph B 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
When one of the many "sources" is simple wrong, a choice is necessary. No need to integrate "The Borg are living beings." and "The Borg are fictional characters". One is wrong (guess which).
In the case of this article, the Hurons did not live in the St. Lawrence River valley in the early 16th century. Georges Sioui, from the Huron village near Quebec City, has emphatically stated as much in his "For an Amerindian autohistory: an essay on the foundations of a social ethic", published in 1992. No source states otherwise (and user 65.92.172.20 / 142.150.134.52 has furnished no counter-argument or credible source).
As for the Mohawks, they lived in the Mohawk River valley (hence their name) in the 16th Century (have a look at the "Handbook of North American Indians", especially volume 15 and 17, which was edited by the Smithsonian Institution). The "Smithsonian", as it is called, is none other than the U.S. federal museum of natural history. And why not check out the writings of Marianne Mithun who, at least, speaks Mohawk and is the most reputable scholar on Iroquoian languages (but then again, as I have previously mentioned, she is not an historian).
Finally, on could go so far, as Mithun suggests, and insist that the inhabitants of Stadacona, Hochelaga and the other villages near Quebec City spoke several languages, in which case, one could surmise that the word "canada" comes from one of the languages spoken by these people(s). One could even underline (preferably elsewhere) that two other Iroquoian languages have a similar word for "village": Oneida and Mohawk (generally written "kanata" since the 19th Century). Thus, any reference to the Mohawk word for "big river", that starts with the same letters, is superfluous. Joseph B 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I found this comment buried in the article: 'modern Spanish word for "here" is "aqui". "Acá" is an archaic form. No es verdad... aqui and acá are just two different ways of saying the same thing. The thing about the Spaniards writing acá nada is just BS anyway, it wouldn't be written that way, either there'd be a comma in there, or it'd be written Aqui (or allí) no hay nada. It's pretty difficult to believe they would have written that, there was and is a big honkin' land mass there, last time I checked. Tubezone 03:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone has researched this or not, but another possible origin I found is the Spanish word Cañada which means glen. Although there is an ñ instead of a plain n, it could have undergone some form of change over time due to the increasing Anglophone population. Gorovich 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
After looking a bit more, it seems there are a few major glens and at least one place named Glen in Canada, which could also give this theory some weight. This could be similar to the Viking tale of Vinland which was also named after something the explorers first found, vines. Perhaps the Spanish explorers found glens and decided to name it Cañada. Gorovich 05:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is original research and has no bearing on the name for Canada. It is a coincidence. The Spanish had almost nothing or nothing to do with the exploration of the lands that became Canada, and I am certain you would not be able to find an authentic Spanish map or document with any evidence pointing to this theory. Hu 06:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I know that's what the dictionary says, but it's not that common, usually a glen would be arroyo or valle, although the Guia Roji lists 12 places in Mexico whose names start with cañada (vs. 20 that begin with arroyo and 30 that begin with valle) Also, the ñ has a y sound after it, it's pronounced "canyatha", and the spelling probably would've been corrupted in translation. Also, the Spaniards probably would've called the place pantana (for the muskeg swamps), or more likely given it a religious name, eg: the first place they landed in Mexico, they named Vera Cruz (True Cross). Any way , it sounds pretty implausible. Tubezone 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was just an idea. Never said it was the word of God or anything. Adiós. Gorovich 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There's currently a weasel-words tag on the Name origin section of this article. No doubt this is due to the opening sentence: "The name Canada is believed to have originated around 1535 from a Wendat (Huron-Iroquoian) word, kanata..." Do we really need to say "believed"? Almost every modern reference accepts that Canada came from kanata or a similar First Nations word. Most of the argument on this subject seems to be around which word from which First Nations language (see above). I think the references support changing this to a definitive statement, eliminating the "is believed to have from the above. I realize that NPOV requires us to include alternative theories, but we are permitted to give greater weight and prominence to the most commonly accepted version. - Eron 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the section to state that Canada came from kanata as this reflects the most broadly accepted view. Alternative theories can still be mentioned of course, though I would like to clean the aca nada paragraph up a bit once I can check a couple more references. - Eron 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the origin of Canada's name back to kanata. The official website of the Canadian government states that Canada was derived from kanata. Here is the link from the official website of the Canadian government. http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/education/prov_e.php
User:Scanadiense 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The Naming of Canada
Three explorers were hiking through a vast forest that would eventually become Canada.
"You know," said the first explorer, "we should name this vast forest we're hiking through."
"I know," said the second explorer. "We'll each pick a letter and then make a name out of that."
"Good idea," said the third explorer. "You go first."
"Okay," said the first explorer. "C, ay."
"My turn," said the second explorer. "N, ay."
Unfortunately, before the third explorer could choose a letter, a bear jumped out of the trees and killed and ate all three explorers. Eventually, some guy came along and named the country after his aunt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.130.118.170 ( talk) 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
The people of Nunavut, who also include Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun as official languages alongside English and French, use the word "Kanata" for Canada. I have added it at the beginning of the article (in the form of a typical language differentiation), but I did not put it in the infobox in the upper-right because I am not sure if this is legally recognized on the federal level in Canada. Anyone know any more on this, and if it's okay to add this in the infobox? -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody removed the syllabics ( Inuktitut: ᑲᓇᑕ Kanata) from the main page during the last rounds of the revert war regarding using "Dominion". Before restoring them, I would like to discuss it. The reason given for the omission is that Inuktitut is not an official language of Canada as a whole. However, it is an official language for Nunavut. Anybody else's thoughts? -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor made some argumentative edits not at all in an encyclopaedic style, that I have reverted, on the issue of "Dominion". The most important edit was:
We have addressed this argument before. I really don’t see why anyone thinks it makes sense. The 1867 Constitution defined the new country to be “One Dominion under the name Canada”, not “under the name the Dominion of Canada”. The argument above goes that the 1920 amendments changed the name from “Canada” to “the Dominion of Canada” by usage. (I do not accept this argument, and few others who have been involved in this on-going argument do.) But yet the proponents of this argument do not accept that the name was then changed back to “Canada” by subsequent usage, including in constitutional documents, beginning in the 1950s. It really seems that some monarchists/traditionalists are only interested in supporting their desire for the commonly-used (but not official) old name to be the “official” one. The evidence appears clear that “Canada” is the official name, and that “Dominion of Canada” is merely a legally-acceptable extension of this. Canada is a dominion, so it is not incorrect to describe it as “the Dominion of Canada”, but there remains no constitutional or legal document that says “the official name of the country is the Dominion of Canada”. The only definition of the name remains the one that I have cited above. Ground Zero | t 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The 1867 Constitution defined the new country to be “One Dominion under the name Canada”, not “under the name the Dominion of Canada”. There is no constitutional or legal document that says “the official name of the country is the Dominion of Canada”. Ground Zero | t 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So I'll take that as a "no", i.e., that you do not have any legal or constitutional document that says "the name [or long form name] of Canada is the Dominion of Canada". All you seem to be willing to offer is extrapolations that you have made yourself which qualify as original research. As you know, Wikipedia is not the place of original research. Regards, Ground Zero | t 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So once again, there is no document that sets out explicitly that there is a long form name -- it is only by convention. And so by the conventions of the last sixty years, when "Dominion of Canada" has not been used, the only name of the country is Canada. Ground Zero | t 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, it is interesting to see that no one has changed their minds one iota, and Wikipedia is still run by the votes of the ignorant mob. All that has changed, from my point-of-view, is that I really no longer care like I once did about the veracity of the content of Wikipedia. I just tell everyone I know that the articles on Wikipedia are inherently un-reliable.
ArmchairVexillologistDon
22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
AVD, please review WP:NPA. As you have been advised before, personal attacks are not welcome here. They are unnecessary, and do nothing to advance the debate. You have put forward an argument based on your own conclusions. That other people do not accept your argument does not make them ignorant. Please withdraw that personal attack, and apologize. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 10:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"... the ignorant mob...." Yes, that is a personal attack. Please withdraw the remark and apologise. You seem determined to demonstrate that you do not belong here. Please respect Wikipedia policies or consider resigning from Wikipedia. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Even though we had been through this argument before, I was willing to continue to discuss this with you. Because you are unwilling to discuss this civilly and within Wikipedia's rules, I'll end the discussion. Ground Zero | t 06:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The United Kingdom of Great Great (1707-1800), and the Dominion of Canada (founded 1867) have similiar "name-suppressor cabals" on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
Upon inspection, the astute observer will notice the parallel naming fucntions in the phrase(s),
However, BOTH long forms of United Kingdom of Great Great and the Dominion of Canada are viciously suppressed here at Wikipedia. Alas.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, you are not the sole judge of manners and etiquette here. I simple hold the position that the long form name(s) of Great Britain (1707-1800), and Canada (founded 1867) are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada, respectively.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, I am not arguing with you.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cropped 25 cent bill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cropped 20 dollar bill.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Text presently in article
JimWae wrote,
A self-governing Colony has Responsible Government (called a Province).
A self-Governing Dominion has Responsible Government and independence (called a Dominion).
Errata:
Dominion is correct, not dominion.
King of England is correct, not king of England.
Queen of England is correct, not not queen of England.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You miss my point - the article says dominion indicates status as a "self-governing colony" of the Empire-- JimWae 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is wrong still --
JimWae
03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The word "dominion" is only capitalized when referring to a specific dominion or at the beginning of a sentence, etc. Here's its entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica for example. [3]
Rule 4.20 in The Canadian style (the official styleguide from the Canadian Dept. of the Secretary of State) states: "A generic term such as city, county, state or province is lower-cased when precedes the proper name or stands alone, unless it is used in a corporate sense." The word dominion is also such a generic term, like the words kingdom, principality, duchy, empire, etc. are.
Jonathan David Makepeace 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Don, your opinion is not fact. And since you are prepared to insult other editors and disregard Wikipedia policies, your opinion doesn't count for anything here. Ground Zero | t 15:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not POV to point out that a particluar claim is one made by some sources. It IS POV to state as bald fact that "Dominion remains the official title of Canada". An on-line quiz is not a legal document, nor is a Canadian Encyclopedia article (btw, written by someone with an agenda that is anti-republican). There is NO legislative nor judical decree that says that dominion ever even WAS an official title, nor is there one that says it still is. This topic is an item of debate here & elsewhere, & to come down on one side or another is to violoate NPOV. Saying that some sources make a claim does not take a position on the claim, saying the claim is fact does -- JimWae 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The Canadian Encyclopedia reference is disputed, so the "according to some sources" reference is appropriate. there remains, after two years of debate over this on this page, no legislative or regulatory citation for a long form name of Canada. User:ArmchairDon above has constructed an argument for a long form name that constitutes original research, which violates WP:NOR. (Of course, he has violated lots of other Wikipedia policies, so his contributions here are not in any way useful.) So there is no rationale for having this article state that the "Dominion of Canada" is an official long form name. Ground Zero | t 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help): "Dominion continues to be part of the official title of this country..."Hodgetts does not say that the "Dominion of Canada" is an official name of Canada, only that "dominion" remains Canada's title. I do not dispute that Canada is a dominion -- the Constitution says so. The Constitution and other legal documents do not say, however, that the "Dominion of Canada" is an official name. I respect Forsey and Rayburn's contributions in their fields, but why are we relying on their views? Why is there is no official document that supports the contention? This is why I think it is appropriate to say that "some sources state that the Dominion of Canada is an official name of Canada", but it is incorrect for Wikipedia to assert that "the Dominion of Canada is an official name of Canada" until a Constitutional or legal document is cited. Ground Zero | t 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I, ArmchairVexillologistDon, will re-state my position,
The logic is clear ... if Canada (post-1867) is the only "name" allowed on Wikipedia, then it follows that Great Britain (1707-1800) is the only "name" allowed on Wikipedia as well. BOTH articles should be made EQUALLY STUPID. ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Original Research? You seem to bring out this when someone suggests something that you disagree with. How can the Great Britain (1707-1800) article stand as it is, whilst the Canada (post-1867) article is held to a DIFFERENT STANDARD? BOTH articles should be made EQUALLY STUPID. ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello 142.150.134.55. That is not my intent. Frankly, this place is run simply on votes. Truth here at Wikipedia does not count ... only votes . Alas. ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello JGGardiner, thank you for your kind and thoughtful response, I appreciate it alot.
I respect your opinion that my comparasion of the Treaty of Union 1707 for Great Britain to that of the British North America Act 1867 for Canada, you view as Original Research.
Question: Why is assigning Canada as the offical name of the country not Original Research? ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The BNA Act sez:
You see -- statutory declaration of the name of the country being "Canada", and not anything else. So Don, please take your personal attacks and original research elsewhere. Ground Zero | t 11:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It is the name. The only name that is established by statute. There is no other. Please respect wikipedia policies on no personal attacks and no original research. Ground Zero | t 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again you have demonstrated that you are incapable of participating civilly and productively in a discussion here. Ground Zero | t 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that there are three sources for a country's legal names:
1) It's constating documents. In Canada's case these include not only the various Constitution Acts but also a variety of imperial statutes, regulations, proclamation and--most importantly for this discussion--conventions.
2) Its foreign ministry, which provides the official forms of names under which it enters in treaties and conventions with other nations.
3) The relevant rules of court determining the proper style of cause under which the sovreign authority sues or can be sued.
Under 1), no primary constitutional document has ever used the form of words, "Dominion of Canada." However, I am in no doubt that a constitutional convention emerged, establishing the validity of that name from the late 19th century until the middle of the 20th century. That being said, there is a strong argument that the principal of disuse is applicable to such a convention.
2) The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade maintains that the only official form of name for the country is, "Canada." At any given time, a country's foreign ministry provides an authoritative and definitive statement in International Law of the country's name. Canada enters into all treaties under the name and style of, "Canada."
When the United Kingdom undertook Canada's external relations, the style "Dominion of Canada," was used--for example, the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty [4]. The style appears within the text (but not in the titles) of Canada's early international instruments--for example, the 1925 Supplementary Convention Between Canada and The United States of America to Provide for Extradition on Account of Crimes or Offences Committed Against the Laws for the Suppression of the Traffic in Narcotics, [5]
By 1940, this had disappeared--see Convention between Canada and The United States of America Providing for Emergency Regulation of the Level of Rainy Lake and of the Level of other Boundary Waters in the Rainy Lake Watershed. [6]. By 1945, Canada was entering into conventions not in the person of the King, but as the Government of Canada: Convention between Canada and The United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation (Succession Duties) [7]
Since 1945, Canada has always acceded to international agreements (whether treaties, conventions or otherwise) as,"Canada," in the person of the, "Government of Canada."
3) At present, the Federal Government appears before Canadian courts variously as: "Her Majesty the Queen," in criminal matters; "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada," in property matters; and "Canada (title of appropriate minister) in administrative law matters.
Canada has always appeared before international tribunals (such as the ICJ) as Canada. Given that Canada was beginning the disuse of the "dominion" style by the time most of these organs came into existence, that is hardly surprising.
It is unrealistic to suggest that the style, "Dominion of Canada," has never had standing--but at the same time, it is clear that the contemporary use of the style is obsolete and incorrect. Visagrunt 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the two sources in the text which refer to "Dominion" as being the country's official "title", are there any examples or definitons of title being used in this context? I have never heard title being used in this context.-- Gregalton 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Christ-on-a-Stick! Here we go again! Argh.
Style: means taken as a collection of individual words (separate pieces).
e.g. United States of America its style is "United" , "States" , "of" , "America" (i.e., the "pieces" are the "collection of individual words", each word is one piece).
Title: means taken as a unit (one inseparable piece).
e.g. United States of America its title is "United States of America" (i.e., there is only one piece, the whole thing is one piece).
Style and Title: means the long-form name of the entity.
e.g. The Style and Title of America is the United States of America (i.e., the country's long-form name).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok GregAlton, try this one on for size eh,
For our American bretheren (from your family in the British Commonwealth of Nations) here is an example of Style and Title denoting the long-form name of the State of Maine (whose Rank is a State of the US) within the United States of America
Constitution of the State of Maine
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
Preamble
We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.
Therefore we have the following,
long-form name: State of Maine (ie., Style and Title means long-form name).
short-form name: Maine
So GregAlton, is the Constitution of the State of Maine a reference that will satisfy you eh?
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. No, the term Style and Title is very plain. In fact, I contend nothing, I state that plainly Style and Title mean un-ambigiously long-form name.
Please review the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Specifically Article I.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1
Article I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Therefore, the long-form name was denoted as the United States of America.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton.
Canada is a short-form name.
A long-form name can not be the same as a short-form name.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No GregAlton, you are incorrect.
long-form name: none (i.e., none submitted)
short-form name: blah.
A single word is by definition a short-form name.
Additionally, a long-form name can not be the same as a short-form name.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. I have given you a rational explaination of the entries in the country name database. I have spent a considerable amount of effort and time to explain to you the intricacies of long-form names, and short-form names of countries. I do not appreciate your flippant dismissals and demands for more explainations. I have given you enough to understand this subject.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 10:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. First-off ... stop putting words in my mouth, I do not like that.
The UN says that Canada is the long-form name?
Show me.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hogg is only expressing an opinion. He is parroting the opinion of Wheare. Both opinions of Hogg and Wheare are un-supported by external references. No referenced materials back them up ... nothing.
Consider the Act of Union 1707 (specifically Article I)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707
Article I
That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.
and compare this to the British North America Act 1867 (specifically Clause 3) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_Act%2C_1867
Clause 3
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.
Therefore by the tenets of Comparative Constitutional Law we have,
One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain (1707-1800)
One Dominion under the Name of Canada (post-1867)
If one aserts that only the short-form name of Canada is valid,
then only the short-form name of Great Britain is valid and NO OTHER designations can be used ... RIGHT?
In other words, Name(s) like Kingdom of Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain are in-valid ... RIGHT?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. A reference for my reasoning, or a Comparative Constituional Law book?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. So everything that is un-referenced is original research?
If so does every sentence need a reference citation?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 03:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. I shall be plain. People whip out original research at their convenience when they want to discredit or supress something they find "inconvenient" to their "pet-theories. Frankly, I have given you my analysis, and whether you believe it or not ... I could really careless.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. Please READ the discussion BEFORE you make flippant comments. My "reasoning" does not support the assertion that only the short-form name of Canada is valid for the country. I firmly have argued that the long-form name of the Dominion of Canada is valid for the country.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 22:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. I am not changing the subject. I am however frustrated with you. Very frustrated.
References to the long-form name the Dominion of Canada
(1). British North America Acts (1871-1947, the Dominion of Canada is explicitly written in these amendments to the 1867 original).
(2). Proclamation of the Ensigns Amorial of the Dominion of Canada, November 19, 1921
(3). The Statute of Westminster 1931 (it explicitly cites the Dominion of Canada several times as the long-form name of the country).
There RobHar ... references enough for you eh?
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone (at least I am not) is disagreeing with you that the name of Canada used to be "Dominion of Canada" (before say the 1960s), so the fact that you list references from before then is not necessarily useful. In fact, in my previous post I asked specifically for references that said that the name of canada is currently "Dominion of Canada". Now your references say that the name used to be "Dominion of Canada". So if you had a reference that said that this fact has never changed that would be good, unfortunately all you have is your reasoning that it hasn't changed. Now I would be being a complete dick if I was just making you prove it was still the name of Canada just for the hell of it. But that is not what I am doing. I am saying that there's a lot of current data that says that the full name is just "Canada" (see for example the United Nations, the CIA factbook, etc. I also add another reference below). In light of this data, I believe it is necessary to justify the claim that "Dominion of Canada" is currently the full name of Canada.
Here's another reference. And I've used comparison with entries from other countries. Here is a reference supporting "Canada" is the "full name" of Canada. It is from the people at the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) (data available here [13]), the official US government board whose sole job it is to figure out exactly what everything is called. Each entry has a "Name Type" and a "Short Form", a "Generic" part (the "descriptive part of the full name"), and a "Full-Name" (see [14] for these descriptions). There are two entries for Canada, the first one's "name type" is "N" for "BGN Standard", the second one's "name type" is "V" for "Variant or alternate name", and the full entries are as follows:
*Name Type: BGN standard *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Canada
and
*Name Type: Variant or alternate name *Short Form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Dominion of Canada
(Above "<empty>" refers to a physically empty space in the database). So it seems like this (official US) database says the full name is "Canada" as opposed to this being simply the short form. And as a variant, one could say "Dominion of Canada", but this is some sort of alternate name. To explore further what the various parts of an entry mean, let's look at two other entries. First Luxembourg, then the perhaps more à propos UK.
Luxembourg has three entries:
*Name Type: Conventional *Language: English *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
also,
*Name Type: BGN standard *Language: French *Short form: Luxembourg *Generic: Grand-Duché *Full name: Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
and a variant
*Name Type: Variant or alternate name *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Luxemburg
So its full name is "Grand-Duché de Luxembourg", its short name is "Luxembourg", the "generic part" (perhaps one might say title) is "Grand-Duché". One could, in English call it "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg". And then there's a different spelling, perhaps some sort of original german spelling as opposed to a gallicized -ourg ending.
And now, the United Kingdom, which has three entries:
*Name Type: BGN standard *Short form: United Kingdom *Generic: <empty> *Full name: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
also,
*Name Type: Variant or alternate name *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Great Britain
and
*Name Type: Variant or alternate name *Short form: <empty> *Generic: <empty> *Full name: Britain
Now my conclusion from this data is that the full name of Canada is "Canada", and the full name of the UK is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". And I don't think it's that the US disagrees with your reasoning, I think its just that they, instead of reasoning, asked the relevant authorities. As I stated above, empirical evidence is stronger than theoretically reasoning.
I'm sorry you are frustrated with me, but it just seems like "Canada" is the full name. If you have a problem with my behaviour on this talk page, I encourage you to report me to some form of administrative committee that deals with such things. RobHar ( talk) 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. You have read about "the growing unrest about the term
Dominion amoungst all
Canadians". I have read about that as well. The question is do you believe such an assertion? I personally do not believe that assertion. I feel that it is has been concocted over time by a variety of Academics who simply did not like the term
Dominion as it cemented our link to the Constitutional-Monarchy.
A long-form name and a short-form name can not be the same. The shortest designation is a single word, thus a short-form name is by definition a single word.
long-form name: none (i.e., none submitted to database)
short-form name: Canada
Therefore, we have developed a practise of the usage of the short-form name of Canada.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
*legal long-form name: Dominion of Canada *legal short-form name: Canada *de facto long-form name: Canada *de facto short-form name: none
or
*legal long-form name: Dominion of Canada *legal short-form name: Canada *de facto long-form name: none *de facto short-form name: Canada
Hello RobHar.
long-form name: Dominion of Canada (supressed by the Government since 1950s)
short-form name: Canada
Only a long-form name is an offical name. The short-form name is un-offically derived from the offical long-form name. So ... no ... I do not agree that Canada is an offical name. I say again, we have developed a practise of the usage of the (un-offical) short-form name of Canada.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello RobHar. I will simply re-state my opinion.
long-form name: Dominion of Canada (supressed by the Government since 1950s)
short-form name: Canada
Only a long-form name is an offical name. The short-form name is un-offically derived from the offical long-form name. So ... no ... I do not agree that Canada is an offical name. I say again, we have developed a practise of the usage of the (un-offical) short-form name of Canada.
I would like to thank you RobHar, for keeping an open mind to the points that I tried to raise to you, during the discussion. I appreciate very much you considering them.
Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"Name" is too ambigious to use in a legal document without context.
For a person we have,
First Name: the first given name,
Middle Name: the second, third, etc., given names (not always necessary),
Last Name: the family name (ie., the Surname),
Full Name: the complete name (i.e., First-Middle-Last Name all put together).
For a person, the Full Name (i.e., long-form name) is defined as their legal name.
For a country we have,
long-form name: the complete name of a country (typical offically adopted within a constitution)
short-form name: the partial name of country (typical un-offically derived from the long-form name).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. Typology? The study of text ... No.
Style and Title mean long-form name of a country (or sub-country entity).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
RESPONSES to GregAlton
GregAlton wrote,
Response 1:
Greg ... don't be an arse.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Response 2:
(more to come)
Response 3:
GregAlton, you are speaking gibberish. Please re-phrase your point.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
4. You have cited a number of primary texts, including the Constitution Act, 1871. I have just checked that source, and some of the others. You are correct, they do use the full term "Dominion of Canada." They do not, however, state anywhere that I can find that this constitutes the name, full, legal, short, or otherwise. They simply use it. The BNA (1867) states simply "One Dominion under the Name of Canada." That seems rather unambiguous as to the "name". Again, this is not proof that Canada is the full legal name, but it is to the point. Could you please provide the specific text of your many sources that says the name is Canada (as opposed to just using the term)? Again, I could argue the opposite point, that by comparables, saying a) Canada is and was a dominion, and b) referring to Dominion of Canada is therefore not an incorrect form, and c) does not necessarily mean that the official name is Dominion of Canada, anymore than Repubic of Ukraine (technically accurate) is the official name of that country, which just happens to be a Republic named Ukraine. Ultimately, this is the same issue as above: interesting ideas lacking references.
Response 4:
(more to come)
Response 5:
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/dominion-status-proclammation-1907
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/dominion-status-gazette-notice-1907
(more to come)
Hello GregAlton,
Here is an example of Style and Title denoting the long-form name of the State of Maine (whose Rank is a State of the US) within the United States of America
Constitution of the State of Maine
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
Preamble
We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.
Therefore we have the following,
long-form name: State of Maine (ie., Style and Title means long-form name).
short-form name: Maine
So GregAlton, is the Constitution of the State of Maine a reference that will satisfy you eh?
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. No, the term Style and Title is very plain. In fact, I contend nothing, I state that plainly Style and Title mean un-ambigiously long-form name.
Please review the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Specifically Article I.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1
Article I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Therefore, the long-form name was denoted as the United States of America.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 08:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello GregAlton. The term Style and Title means long-form name. If you willfully frain "intellectual-blindness" to this, it is not of my concern. What is my concern is that if the long-form name of the Dominion of Canada founded on July 1, 1867, as a federal Dominion is going to be supressed, I am going to point out that the short-form name of just Canada is not an offical one.
Canada is NOT an offical designation, it is an un-offical short-form name. Countries can only be known by their offical long-form names.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read the passage from Peter Hogg's book, and he does NOT actually say that. Please read it again, and more carefully this time eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"In the 1930s, the federal government decided to switch the official name of the country from the Dominon of Canada to Canada."
Hello Quizimodo.
Here is an example of Style and Title denoting the long-form name of the State of Maine (whose Rank is a State of the US) within the United States of America
Constitution of the State of Maine
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/
Preamble
We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.
Therefore we have the following,
long-form name: State of Maine (ie., Style and Title means long-form name).
short-form name: Maine
using the Constitution of the State of Maine as a reference.
Next up, the term Style and Title very plainly means un-ambigiously long-form name.
Please review the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Specifically Article I.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1
Article I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Therefore, the long-form name was denoted as the United States of America.
The implication to the article in question (i.e., Canada's Name) is that its long-form name should be referenced as the Dominion of Canada founded on July 1, 1867, as a
federal
Dominion.
ArmchairVexillologistDon ( talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
References to a "collection of huts" and other such definitions of the word "canada" are spurious. There is but one source for the meaning of the word "canada" as used by the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, namely Jacques Cartier's travel log:
He (or his ghost writer) wrote: "Ilz appellent une ville canada," which roughly translates as "They call a village canada." The only question is whether "ville" meant "village" or "city" in the 16th Century. In any case, collection of huts is pure 21st Century imagination at its best. As for a description of a St. Lawrence Iroquoian village of the Quebec City region, we have nothing to go on. Cartier described Hochelega, near Montreal, but not Stadacona, near Quebec City. Neither has ever been located. Joseph B ( talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Quizimodo might try to put at least one sentence defending his/her thesis that "canada" meant "collection of huts" in the language spoken by the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. Cartier's Recit, which is a primary source, states otherwise. The rest is pure speculation. Joseph B ( talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles on the St. Lawrence Iroquoians have not been seriously challenged or radically changed for well over a year, and several contributors have improved them. Here are the main sources on this subject (only the first is available on the net, however):
The first (primary) source dates from 1545. Since the St. Lawrence Iroquoians vanished by the time the next European showed up, the distinction between primary and secondary sources takes on considerable importance with regards to the meaning of the word 'canada' in Laurentian, the language spoken at Stadacona in the 16th century. Our entire understanding of this language boils downs to two lists of vocabulary in the travels logs of Jacques Cartier. The foremost expert on Iroquoian languages, Marianne Mithun, has stated this emphatically in her published works on the language of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. Thus, any statement that the word 'canada' means "collection of huts" contradicts the foremost authority on Iroquoian languages, who quotes the only known primary source, and could even be considered to be a racist insult. If the Stadaconans did live like their cousins in Hochelaga, they would have lived in longhouses which are a far cry from "huts". Joseph B ( talk) 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Referenced facts with complete quotes from scholarly sources are provided. Please do not Blank these again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)