Talk:Name of Canada/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A Couple of Problems

Well ... we have 3 Problems.

Problem 1. The Coat-of-Arms of the Dominion of Canada (1921).

Problem 2. The offical name change of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1927).

Problem 3. The Statute of Westminster (1931).

Problems 1, and 3 are concerning the usage of the term the Dominion of Canada, when that as per the BNA Act 1867, this is only an un-offical long form name. BOTH these are compounded by the fact that Problem 2 was formally used to legally change the long form offical name of the UK to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

So either

(a). the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an invalid long form offical name,

or

(b). Canada has no Offical Coat-of-Arms, and the Statute of Westminster 1931 is WORTHLESS (with regards to Canadian Sovereignty).

How to we square this one?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Problem 1. The Coat-of-Arms of the Dominion of Canada (1921).

Proclamation concerning the Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada. November 21, 1921. (Source: S.R. & O. Rev. Dec 31, 1948: vol. 2, p. 801). BY THE KING. A Proclamation declaring His Majesty's Pleasure concerning the Ensigns Armorial of the Dominion of Canada.

George R.I.

Whereas We have received a request from the Governor General in Council of Our Dorninion of Canada that the Arms or Ensigns Armorial hereinafter described should be assigned to Our said Dominion:

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

Problem 2. The offical name change of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1927).

An Act to provide for the alteration of the Royal Style and Titles and of the Style of Parliament and for purposes incidental thereto. 17 Geo. 5. c. 4 [12th April 1927.] section 1 repealed, SLR 1950; section 2 repealed in part, SL(R) 1977, c. 18, s. 1(1), sch. 1 pt. XIX: Interpretation, 1978, c. 30 s 25(1), sch. 3

BE it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :—

1. It shall be lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty, by His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm, issued within six months after the passing of this Act, to make such alteration in the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown as to His Majesty may seem fit.

2.-(1) Parliament shall hereafter be known as and styled the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and accordingly, the present Parliament shall be known as the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, instead of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (2) In every Act passed and public document issued after the passing of this Act the expression "United Kingdom" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

3. This Act may be cited as the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927.

Problem 3. The Statute of Westminster (1931).

The Statute of Westminster 1931

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1936westminster.html

Modern History Sourcebook:

Statute of Westminster 1931

Official Long Title: An Act to give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences held in the years 1926 and 1930

[Preamble]

Whereas the delegates to His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at Imperial Conferences holden at Westminster in the years of our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six and nineteen hundred and thirty did concur in making the declarations and resolutions set forthin the Reports of the said Conference:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol to the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion. And whereas it is necessary for the ratifying, confirming and establishing of certain of the said declarations and resolutions of the said Conferences that a law be made and enacted in due form by authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

And whereas the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland have severally requested and consented to the submission of a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for making such provision with regard to the matters aforesaid as is hereafter in this Act contained: Now, therefore, be in enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Section 1 [Meaning of "Dominion" in this Act]

In this Act the expression "Dominion" means any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.

Section 2 [Validity of laws made by Parliament of a Dominion]

(1) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion.

(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion.

Section 3 [Power of Parliament of Dominion to legislate extra-territorially]

It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.

Section 4 [Parliament of United Kingdom not to legislate for Dominion except by its consent]

No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

Section 5 [Powers of Dominion Parliaments in relation to merchant shipping]

Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, sections seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the Legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the Parliament of a Dominion.

Section 6 [Powers of Dominion Parliaments in relation to Courts of Admiralty]

Without prejudice to a generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (which requires certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and so much of section seven of that Act as requires the approval of His Majesty in Council to any rules of Court for regulating the practice and procedure of a Colonial Court of Admiralty, shall cease to have effect in any Dominion as from the commencement of this Act.

Section 7 [Saving for British North America Acts and applications of the Act to Canada]

(1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.

(2) The provisions of section two of this Act shall extend to laws made by any of the Provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such Provinces.

(3) The powers conferred by this Act upon the Parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the Provinces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in the relation to matters within the competence of the Parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the Provinces respectively.

Section 8 [Saving for Constitution Acts of Australia and New Zealand]

Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act.

Section 9 [Saving with respect to States of Australia]

(1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorize the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to make laws on any matter within the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to require the concurrence of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any law made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom with respect to any matter within the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any case where it would have been in accordance with the constitutional practice existing before the commencement of this Act that the Parliament of the United Kingdom should make that law without such concurrence.

(3) In the application of this Act to the Commonwealth of Australia the request and consent referred to in section four shall mean the request and consent of the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth.

Section 10 [Certain sections of Act not to apply to Australia, New Zealand or Newfoundland unless adopted]

(1) None of the following sections of this Act, that is to say, sections two, three, four, five and six, shall extend to a Dominion to which this section applies as part of the law of that Dominion unless that section is adopted by the Parliament of the Dominion, and any Act of that Parliament adopting any section of this Act may provide that the adoption shall have effect either from the commencement of this Act or from such later date as is specified in the adopting Act.

(2) The Parliament of any such Dominion as aforesaid may at any time revoke the adoption of any section referred to in subsection (1) of this section.

(3) The Dominions to which this section applies are the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and Newfoundland.

Section 11 [Meaning of "Colony" in future Acts]

Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression "Colony" shall not, in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act, include a Dominion or any Province or State forming a part of a Dominion.

Section 12 [Short title] This Act may be cited as the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

Source: 22 George V, Chapter 4; 11th December, 1931 } ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Realme (Part 1.)

Not sure if its worthy of inclusion or not but apart from dominion, the proposal of "Realme" would have been just as much a loan word in french.--Marc pasquin 02:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Realme" is a word from Old French. It became apart of the English Language after the Norman-French conquest after the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The Norman-French ruled the Kingdom of England, and the language of the court was French. The Throne of the UK has "Dieu et Mon Droit on it because the French ruled England. By 1362, the English Language was made the offical langauge of England. Therefore, it took 294 years of intermarriage between the Norman-French ruling class, and their Germanic subjects for the English Language to develop.

So how is the word "Realme" (in English "Realm") a so-called loan-word? And where did this odd idea of a loan-word come from?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

both Dominion and realme are loan word for the simple reason that they are not used in french. Neither appear in any french dictionary unless as something along the lines of "Dominion: enlgish loan-word formaly used to designate some entities within the british empire".

Incidently, "Old french" is not the same as modern french in the same way that "anglo-saxon" is different from modern english. Try and find either of these words (either online or elsewhere) and you will see my point.--Marc pasquin 14:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well look. Before 1789 le Royaume de la France existed. They would of used the word. Does this satisfy you? ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Supposition. Can you cite a direct example?Homey 20:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Supposition? Le Royaume de la France using the word realme in one of its documents? Of course it would of done that. You people are way to literal. ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You're making an assumption. Provide a quotation to support your theory. Homey 01:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"The Kingdom of England" versus just "England"

The Norman-French founded the Kingdom of England in 1066. William the Conqueror was King of the Kingdom of England, and Duke of the Duchy of Normandy. British Heraldy is really French Heraldy, rather a subset of Norman-French Heraldy. So you ,and Marc Pasquin are saying that words like Dominion, and now Realme (Realm in English) are not French words? ArmchairVexillologistDon

The Norman-French did not found the Kingdom of England in 1066 - it had been in existence for at least 200 years before that. Moreover William the Conqueror was not King of the "Kingdom of England", and Duke of the "Duchy of Normandy", he was King of England and Duke of Normandy.

submitted by Ross Burgess Ross Burgess

Ok Ross, I'll go look this one up. However, I am damn sure that William the Conqueror was the first King of the "Kingdom of England" in 1066, and he was Duke of the "Duchy of Normandy". I also believe William founded it (the "Kingdom of England"). I could be wrong though. ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ross Burgess, thank you for your correction. I was wrong about the Kingdom of England. I apologise for that. I was wrong. I would like to ask though when was the Kingdom of England (not just England) founded?. Next up, William the Conqueror was the Duke of the Duchy of Normandy. Please look at this Wikipedia entry (Duchy of Normandy). Thanks again, and take care eh,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh God! Here we go again!

Oi, I have just gone through this with the Dominion of Canada versus just Canada debate. After lengthy and temptestuous debate, I was forced to admit that I was wrong, and that (in a complete break with tradition), the Union of British North America (post July 1, 1867) chose only to define a short form name ( of just "Canada") in the British North America Act 1867. I do not want to get into the same debate with England or the Kingdom of England.

In short before 1066, and William the Conqueror becoming the first Norman-French King did the Kingdom of England exist, or not? If so was it called "England" or "the Kingdom of England"? When? By whom?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom of England

Main article: History of England

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kingdom_of_England

The Kingdom of England has no specific founding date. The Kingdom can trace its origins to the Heptarchy, the rule of what would later become England by seven minor Kingdoms: East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, and Wessex.

Wikipedia is not a debating society. This discussion is completely irrelevent to the topic of Canada's name. Please take it somewhere else (like your own talk pages). Homey 17:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a TALKPAGE. The subject is Canada's Name. During the course of this discussion, we were lead to this subject. Again, the course of the conversation lead us here. However, perhaps I assume you would object to the term "conversation". If so, I could use the term "discussion", "debate", or... "the ASCII text typed here, and thus displayed on the Wikipedia Server."

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's still off-topic. Take it to your own talk pages please. Homey 19:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Realme (Part 2.)

The Arms of France

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frarms.htm

Why would the Norman-French exclude those terms? Why? ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Supposition is not fact. Unless you can provide an example of the word "realme" being used as a non-loan word in modern French then you have nothing but speculation. Homey 03:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What about Marc Pasquin's supposition that "Realme" is not a French word? ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

How about this:

1 - If you look at a french-english dictionary, you will see the english word "realm" translated as "royaume" .

2 - I'm a native french speaker, well read, college educated and have never encountered that word in a french text.

3 - What is often refered to as "norman-french" is not the same as modern french.

4 - (And much more importantly) I have not been able to find the word "realme" in any french dictionaries either online or at home.

is this valid to you ?--Marc pasquin 00:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Marc,

You are a Quebecois native-speaker. International Standand "France French" is different than French-Quebecois. Similarly, there is Standard Dutch and Boer (Afrikans). Quebecois and Afrikans are non-standard variants.

Additionally, go to a local bookstore, and pick up a Canadian English-Canadian French Dictionary (the one with the Canadian Maple Leaf Flag, and the Quebec Flag). Look up Dominion and Realm in the English section, and you will see their French translations. The Dominion one is particularly funny. ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you simply skip over points that seem to contradict your opinion, I see no point in continuing this discussion.--Marc pasquin 01:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

AVD, in many ways Quebecois French has more in common with 18th century "standard" French than does 20th century standard French. Indeed, since Quebec was lost by France 30 years before the French Revolution if, as you claim, the word "realme" was used in France in the 1600s and 1700s then it would likely be current in modern Quebecois French - but it's not. As for your theory that the word was purged by the Jacobins et al such a purge would not have extended to Quebec. Yet the word does not exist in Quebec French. This suggests that your theory is bunk. Homey 03:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Heraldry of the Kingdom of France (le Royaume de la France)

Here is a place to start looking, http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/France/ ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The Norman-French founded the Kingdom of England in 1066. William the Conqueror was England's first King. By 1362, English was made the Offical Language of England. So it took 294 years for the intermarriage between the Norman-French speaking ruling class, and their Germanic speaking subjects for the English Language to develop. So English is a bastard hybrid of French and German. As well, British Heraldry is really French Heraldry, rather a sub set of Norman-French Heraldry.

Thus English would contain French and German words, brought directly into the English Language. The development of English is really a "snap-shot" of old French, and old German. So this whole notion of loan-words is really a misnomer, and it breaks down under closer inspection.

French is not sacrosanct, it is not pure. Neither is German a pure language. The English Language got all of its "Royal Words" from the French Language.

French Revolution Reference

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/burke/army.htm

This is a short accounting of what the Proclamations of the National Assembly did to the French Army, during the French Revolution. As well, it is possible that the "Royalist Words" in French were obliterated from the French Dictionaries, following the French Revolution. ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to see if I'm getting this right, are you implying that there was some type of conspiracy centuries ago that obliterated some words from the french language and actualy manage to make any occurence of those words disapear ? --Marc pasquin 00:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Michel Pastoreau, Heraldry An Introduction to a Noble Trandition,Harry N. Abrams Inc., Publishers, New York, pp. 144, (1997).

ISBN: 0-8129-2830-2

Do Historians Fear the Fleur-de-Lis?, pp. 98-101.

The Suppression of the Signs of Feudalism, pp. 114-115.

Go to your local Chapters, and read it. ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

AVD, languages change. There are perfectly good Middle English words that we either no longer use or whose meanings have completely changed. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the possibility that the word "realme", though imported into English, did not surive the transition from Norman French to its successor?

You have to learn to distinguish between supposition and fact. Just becuase it would "make sense" for the word "realme" to have survived the transition from Norman French doesn't mean it did and just because you suppose that the word was retained until 1789 doesn't mean it was. You may have a theory but in the absence of hard evidence (meaning actual documents using the word "realme" or an entry in a French dictionary stating that it was used as recently as the eighteenth century) your theory is unproven and thus "original research". Homey 02:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

HOTR, I know the difference between supposition and fact. As well, I know what original research on Wikipedia is. Please quit lecturing me on these points. I find your lectures annoying and condescending. ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

"I know the difference between supposition and fact"

Good, then we don't need to explain why your supposition that realme must be a mondern French word is not sufficient to justify inclusion in the article. Homey 03:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? You just can not leave well enough alone. You've got mental problems. Big ones. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Homey 17:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Look-it, Homey, I am tired of you going over everything that I write with a fine-tooth comb. I feel like anything I write, you are going to trash it. A case in Point,

feudal rank issue

You kept going on and on, and well ... on!

No Original Research... show me a reference. Well not every bloody thing is on the freakin' internet. Please get that through your head. Please.

This bloody link (Reference (2). on the feudal rank article, but was NOT emphasized).

http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm

An Empire is ruled by an Emporeur, a Kingdom is ruled by a King, a Principality is ruled by a Prince, a Duchy is ruled by a Duke, a March is ruled by a Marquis, an Earldom is ruled by an Earl, a County is ruled by a Count (Viscount), and an Estate is ruled by a Baron.

You were screaming "Give me a reference! Original Research! Give me a reference!" blah blah.

I am just sick of being harrassed by you. Back off a little. ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The point remains, please refrain from making personal attacks.Homey 19:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

After the Conquest

I have a couple problems with the recently added "After the Conquest" section. First, it implies that the words Canada and Canadian were not used before the Conquest, which is not true. Second, it ignores francophones outside Quebec: they certainly did not start calling themselves québécois during the Quiet Revolution, which hardly affected them at all. I question whether the paragraph is a useful addition to the article at all, and I'm tempted to delete it. Comments? Indefatigable 23:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi; agreed! It reads like a brief opinion that is unco-ordinated with the rest of the article. I'll revert, if there are no/few objections ... Perhaps, though, something should be included about canadien(ne), since those were/are used variably to describe French Canadians? E Pluribus Anthony 23:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the only thing worth noting in that regard is the evolution of the meaning of both Canada and Canadien/Canadian: Before the conquest it was limited to a small area and the gentille refered to localy born french subjects werehas after the conquest (and especialy after the creation of upper canada) the terms slowly began to acqueried other meanings.

As to the impact of the quiet revolution on francophones outside quebec, it did have a certain impact: Before, francophones fell broadly into either canadien/french-canadian (those whose ancestor came from the french province of Canada) or acadian (descendants of those who originaly inhabited acadie-plaisance). post quiet revolution, most francophone communities started instead to define themselves along modern provincial lines --Marc pasquin 02:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

After the Conquest (Contribution by: 80.212.80.213 )

After the conquest of the French colony of New France in 1759-63, the colony came to be known as Canada, and its French speaking inhabitants were referred to as Canadians. The English speaking would simply be called "les anglais" - The English. French speaking Canadians continued to call themselves Canadians until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960'ies. when the term "québecois" was introduced.

First off, this is not signed. Upon using the IP Address locator (free on-line),

http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation

one gets: 80.212.80.213 Oslo, Norway, Correlation: 84%

Anything below a correlation of 90% (i.e., 0.90) is very unreliable. So the IP Address Locator result of Oslo Norway, is very questionable. So this begs the question who submitted this entry? and from where?

North America Colonies (until 1783)

http://www.regiments.org/nations/namerica/namerica.htm

This link provides a very informative list of the history of the British North American Colonies (until 1783).

Additionally, from 1763-1783, there were 19 British American Colonies. The former territories of New France were partitioned into (i). the Colony of Quebec, (ii). the Northwest Territory (the Ohio Valley), and (iii). the Crown Lands (Indian Country).

British American Colonies 1763-1775

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/british_colonies_1763-76.jpg

From North to South, the 19 Colonies are listing below, (Note: The 6 Loyalist Colonies of the 19 Colonies of are denoted in red). (Please click on above section).

My points are,

(i). I do not summarily delete peoples contributions,

(ii). This may have some relavence to Canada's name,

(iii). This contribution should be signed by a Wikipedia member,

(iv). This contribution implies the term "Canada", was used with regards to "British Occupied New France" (1759-1763)".

(v). This contribution implies the term "Canadien/Canadien(ne)" (Canadian, in English) only applied to French Colonists of the area. It ignores the English-Speaking Colonists in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec (1763-1791), Upper Canada, (1791-1841), and finally the United Province of Canada (1841-1867).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

First, could I ask the contributor to sign this comment above. Second, I think we should evaluate contributions based on their merit, not based on the location of the contributor. Even people in Oslo may know something about this subject. Let's not engage in ad hominem attacks. HistoryBA 13:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

HistoryBA, this is the second time you have "asked" me to sign my comments. I always do. I was in the process of adding my summary of points (i). to (v). when I got "cut-off" by you. Please be more patient.

Next up, I believe the 80.212.80.213 (Oslo, Norway, Correlation: 84%) contribution has merit, and is relavent to the article Canada's Name. I just would like to have it signed by the Wikipedia member who submitted it (if they are not of Wikipedia, then I feel that they should register).

Finally, I have NOT made an adhominem with regards to "Oslo Norway", you are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is the contribution was unsigned, and the IP Address is suspect, as it has a correlation of only 84%, or 0.84 (a correlation of r^2 < 0.90 is useless). ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

MarcP, AVD, HBA: hello! I agree with everything cited here; this notion – usage of canadien(ne) – should be expanded upon briefly in the article. It would be nice if the original contributor provided more authoritative information, phrased it differently, or contributed more (not to mention signing it!), but the original contribution should be changed somehow. Thoughts? Thanks!

PS: use of the sandbox is encouraged to proof contributions before committing them; god knows, though, that I don't always do this. :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Gradual Slur Theory: Realme to Royaume

(1). Realme (Supposed "English loan-word", Battle of Hastings 1066)

(2). reialme (c. 1100, French Literature)

Prononc. et Orth.: []. Att. ds Ac. dep. 1694. Étymol. et Hist. 1. Ca 1100 « État gouverné par un roi » (Roland, éd. J. Bédier, 2914);

(3). reiame (1200, French Literature)

(4). roiaume (1266, French literature)

(5). roiame(1524, French Literature)

(6). Royaume (Supposed "unrelated" French word, today.)

http://atilf.atilf.fr/Dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/advanced.exe?8;s=1654503750;

A. 1. État gouverné par un roi ou par une reine. Royaume de Belgique, de Grèce, de Naples; capitale, provinces d'un royaume; grand, petit royaume; les royaumes de l'Europe, de l'univers. Les auteurs (...) n'ont pas hésité (...) à franchir à maintes reprises les frontières du royaume de France (L'Hist. et ses méth., 1961, p. 644):

... Albert, marquis de Brandebourg (...) se rendit seul maître de la Prusse, qui prit alors le nom de Prusse ducale. Ce nouveau duché fut érigé en royaume, en 1701, sous l'aïeul du grand Frédéric. CHATEAUBR., Génie, t. 2, 1803, p. 479.

Empl. abs. [Désigne le royaume dont il est question dans le cont.] Lieutenant-général du royaume; les grands du royaume; les lois fondamentales du royaume; dans, par tout le royaume; hors du royaume; dans l'étendue du royaume. Les divers ordres du royaume revêtus des habits de leur état (SÉNAC DE MEILHAN, Émigré, 1797, p. 1585).

P. méton. Ensemble des habitants d'un royaume, du royaume dont il est question. Aucune exécution ne répugnait à sa fidélité. Il aurait égorgé tout le royaume si je lui avais commandé de le faire (ABOUT, Roi mont., 1857, p. 225). V. extraordinaire ex. 2.

Loc. fig. Pas pour un royaume. Pour rien au monde. Synon. plus cour. pas pour un empire. Je ne ferais pas cela pour un royaume, je n'irais pas là pour un royaume (Ac. 1798-1935).

2. Loc. (servant à désigner des royaumes partic.) a) Vx ou littér. Le royaume des lis/lys. Le royaume de France. Ses vignes avaient été épargnées par les capitaines tant Armagnacs que Bourguignons qui ravageaient la Champagne (...) pour la douceur avec laquelle il avait traité les deux partis qui déchiraient le royaume des lys (A. FRANCE, Clio, 1900, p. 138). b) Vieilli. Les (trois) royaumes(-)(unis). Au XIXe s., ensemble politique formé de la Grande-Bretagne (Angleterre et Écosse) et de l'Irlande. À vrai dire, et à parler sérieusement, c'est le plus honnête homme des trois royaumes (VIGNY, Chatterton, 1835, III, 4, p. 322). La Grande-Bretagne consentait à intervenir pour la délivrance de Ferdinand, si j'entrais dans les vues des Royaumes-Unis (CHATEAUBR., Mém., t. 3, 1848, p. 196). Voici ce qui avait extirpé une exclamation au plus parfait gentleman des trois royaumes unis (GAUTIER, Rom. momie, 1858, p. 172). c) Le Royaume-Uni. Au XIXe s. et au début du XXe s., synon. de les trois royaumes; à partir de 1923, ensemble politique formé de la Grande-Bretagne et de l'Irlande du Nord. Monsieur Phileas Fogg était l'homme le plus exact et le plus sédentaire du Royaume-Uni (VERNE, Tour monde, 1873, p. 4). L'on prévoyait alors qu'en 1975 près de la moitié de l'électricité du Royaume-Uni serait d'origine nucléaire (GOLDSCHMIDT, Avent. atom., 1962, p. 109).

3. [P. allus. à des phrases hist., littér. ou relig.] a) La grande pitié* qu'il y avait dans le royaume de France. b) Il y a quelque chose de pourri* dans le royaume de Danemark. c) [P. allus. à la phrase de Richard III, roi d'Angleterre, sur le champ de bataille de Bosworth où il fut vaincu et tué; phrase reprise par Shakespeare dans Richard III, V, 4: Mon royaume pour un cheval] Un poème! un poème! mon royaume pour un poème! mon royaume pour un cheval! comme dit Richard III (LAMART., Corresp., 1830, p. 42). d) [P. allus. au N.T., Matth. XII, 25, Marc III, 24, Luc XI, 17: Tout royaume divisé contre lui-même court à la ruine] La congrégation, ce pauvre petit royaume, est divisée contre elle-même (M. DE GUÉRIN, Corresp. 1833, p. 108). V. chausses ex. 3.

B. LITT., MYTH., RELIG. 1. Gén. littér. Royaume infernal, noir, sombre; royaume de Pluton, de l'ombre, de la mort, des morts, des ombres; noirs royaumes; sombre(s) royaume(s). Enfers, séjour des morts. Heureuses divinités qui folâtrez sans cesse sous des cieux toujours bleus, tandis que je suis condamné aux sombres cloaques du royaume infernal! (CRÉMIEUX, Orphée, 1858, I, 4, p. 37). [Vial] se campa devant moi, pareil à un mitron des noirs royaumes (COLETTE, Naiss. jour, 1928, p. 31). V. ombre1 II C 3 ex. de Vialar.

2. Royaume céleste, éternel; céleste royaume; royaume du ciel, des cieux. Paradis. Le prêtre réfractaire Bernier (...) promettait la victoire à ces malheureux et le royaume du ciel à ceux qui mourraient pour Louis XVII (ERCKM.-CHATR., Hist. paysan, t. 2, 1870, p. 215). Et le pauvre trouvé dans la neige à Noël Est entré de plain-pied au Royaume éternel (JAMMES, Géorgiques, Chant 7, 1912, p. 86).

3. a) THÉOL. JUDÉO-CHRÉT. Royaume céleste, royaume de Dieu, du Père, du ciel, des cieux, de Jésus-Christ, du Christ et, absol., Royaume. Règne de Dieu, du Christ; communauté des croyants vivant de l'enseignement du Christ; communauté des saints. Attente du Royaume. [L'abbé Ardouin] te parlait de ces enfants à qui il faut ressembler pour entrer dans le royaume du Père (MAURIAC, Nœud vip., 1932, p. 139). Les Églises chrétiennes (...) vivent de la promesse du Royaume qui vient et qui déjà est à l'œuvre dans le monde de l'homme (Univers écon. et soc., 1960, p. 66-1).

[P. allus. au N.T., Jean XVIII, 36: Mon règne, mon royaume n'est pas de ce monde (v. règne C)]. Lui [l'archevêque de Bragues]!... Son royaume est de l'autre monde (LEMERCIER, Pinto, 1800, I, 2, p. 37). Son royaume [du poète] n'est pas de ce monde, et ses édifices ne pèsent pas sur la terre (Arts et litt., 1936, p. 38-16). b) P. anal., PHILOS. Royaume des fins. Règne des fins (v. règne C). N'en est-il pas ainsi dans la morale de Kant lui-même? L'homme n'y est qu'un membre du royaume des fins (GILSON, Espr. philos. médiév., 1932, p. 138). 4. HIST. LITTÉR. Royaume de Tendre. V. tendre2 B 2 b. C. P. anal. ou au fig. Espace, endroit, domaine concret ou abstrait propre à une personne, à un animal, à une chose, où une personne, un animal, une chose domine par des qualités qui lui sont propres. Royaume intérieur; royaume de l'esprit, de la pensée; royaume des songes. Il faut d'abord que je vous montre la maison, le jardin, tout notre petit royaume (DUHAMEL, Suzanne, 1941, p. 117). Nous entrons éblouis dans le jeune royaume du genêt et des ajoncs! (COLETTE, Belles sais., 1954, p. 160).

Loc. proverbiale. Au royaume des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois. V. borgne1.

Plais. Le royaume des taupes. Le cimetière. On se serait cru logé devant le Père-Lachaise, en plein royaume des taupes (ZOLA, Assommoir, 1877, p. 687). Prononc. et Orth.: []. Att. ds Ac. dep. 1694. Étymol. et Hist. 1. Ca 1100 reialme « État gouverné par un roi » (Roland, éd. J. Bédier, 2914); 2. 1266 Dieu roiaume « paradis » (RUTEBEUF, Complainte d'Outremer, éd. E. Faral et J. Bastin, t. 1, p. 448, vers 113). Altér. par croisement avec royal* de l'a. fr. reiame « id. » ca 1200 (Jean Renart, L'Escoufle, éd. Fr. Sweetser, 1524: roiame) mil. XIVe s. (Prise de Pamp., 582 ds GDF. Compl.), du lat. regimen, -inis « direction, gouvernement », v. régime; cf. l'a. prov. regeme « royaume » XIIe-XIIIe s. ds RAYN. t. 4, p. 68a et LEVY Prov. et reialme « id. » XIIIe-XVe s. ds PANSIER. Fréq. abs. littér.: 3 591. Fréq. rel. littér.: XIXe s.: a) 7 818, b) 3 246; XXe s.: a) 3 258, b) 4 900. Bbg. BAIST (G.). Banse, bouleau, bride... Rom. Forsch. 1906, t. 19, pp. 639-640. CARMIGNAC (J.). Règne de Dieu ou royaume de Dieu? Foi Lang. 1976, n o 1, pp. 38-41. QUEM. DDL t. 30 (s.v. Royaume(-)Uni). ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Marc Pasquin: Have you changed your mind about "Realme" being a loan-word

(1). Realme (Supposed "English loan-word", Battle of Hastings 1066)

(2). reialme (c. 1100, French Literature)

Prononc. et Orth.: []. Att. ds Ac. dep. 1694. Étymol. et Hist. 1. Ca 1100 « État gouverné par un roi » (Roland, éd. J. Bédier, 2914);

(3). reiame (1200, French Literature)

(4). roiaume (1266, French literature)

(5). roiame(1524, French Literature)

(6). Royaume (Supposed "unrelated" French word, today.)

Have you changed your mind about "Realme" being a loan-word? Well Marc? Pas pear pour un maudis anglais, n'est ce pas?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

AVD, your habit of asking a question and then immediately asking "Well?" without giving the person a chance to respond is quite rude.

In any case, I don't see how the information you have above would change Marc's mind since it suggests the word "realme" hasn't been indigenous in French since the 13th century. Royaume may be descended from "realme" (though I think it's more likely related to the word "roi") but that doesn't change the fact that realme was reintroduced in the 19th century because of British influence. Homey 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

HOTR,

As per my usage of "Well?" I do not require any lessons on etiquette from you. You are an Admin that summarily deletes peoples contributions, aggressively pushes your "Republican" point of view, and "witch-hunts" for closet Racists. Now before you scream "personal attack", these facts are well known and I am merely enumerating to the obvious. Next up, you and I, get get along like "a match and gunpowder".

My first language is English. I had early French Emmersion from kindergarten to Grade 3. In Grade 4, I switched into English. I was the first in my school to do so, and I had to do quite a bit of at-home work to be able to switch from Grade 3 French, to Grade 4 English. Today, my spelling, patterns of speech, and "Frenglish/Franglais" sentence construction still dog me to this day.

I have achieved high level degrees, and I am well read in my fields of hobby (Flags, Coat-of-Arms, History). I was not dumping on Marc Pasquin. Marc is well known at the Flags of the World website, and I respect him alot. Marc just espouses the "French Attitude" that (these so called) loan-words go only one way.

BTW ... kindergarten? We "Anglais" use that constantly, yet we never complain about it ... because it is accepted "English Usage!"

"Domain" ... in French "Domaine" (Is this a loan-word?. No.)

"Domination" ... in French "Domination" (Is this a loan-word?. No.)

"Dominion" ... somehow this is supposed to be a "loan-word".

Non-sense. The term "loan-word" is ill-defined and arbitrary. Its invokation is just mere French "language-snobbery".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

As per your question, no, you haven't proven it. All you have done is show an ethymological link between the english word "realm" and the french "royaume". Same goes for the words "candle" and french "chandelle". I could have saved you the time by pointing out the simple fact that both come from Latin roots (as do "dominion").

Your research has failed to found the word "realme" in a modern french text and, unless you have found it in a modern dictionary I haven't checked, this mean once more that if the words realme (or dominion) are used in a modern french text, they have been borrowed from the english.

Finaly, please do not presume as to my mind set, implying that my opinions are based on some sort of "french attitude" is not only simplistic but smack of bigotry. It might come as a terrible shock but some people might disagree with you for the simple reason that you are wrong.--Marc pasquin 20:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Marc,

Thanks for signing your post. I appreciate that alot. Next up, before your entry read,

203.164.53.214

So I used the IP Address Locator (free on-line)

http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation

Upon entring 203.164.53.214 in the IP Address locator, I got this,

Location: Sydney Australia (Correlation: 50%)

Wow, a Correlation of r^2 < 0.90 (i.e., 90%) is un-reliable. So r^2 < 0.50 is a record for being useless! (the last record low was 84%, i.e., r^2 < 0.84)

What does the place where I live have to do with this discussion ? Well ?--Marc pasquin 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Next up, me being an anti-French bigot. Hmmm, I have been called that before. I guess it depends on your point-of-view. I have a sound knowlegde of French, and I don't take "native-speakers" word for the accuracy of their translations, so call me what you will.

Are you asserting that l'ancienne francaise, is completely unrelated to la moderne francaise, well? ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you even read peoples contribution or just jump to 3-4 words and then concentrate on that, Well, do you ?--Marc pasquin 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Marc,

Yes, I do read peoples contributions. I also have read yours. If you feel that I have ignored something, then please point it out to me. BTW, are you in Australia?

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Marc Pasquin

Marc Pasquin wrote,

As per your question, no, you haven't proven it. All you have done is show an ethymological link between the english word "realm" and the french "royaume". Same goes for the words "candle" and french "chandelle". I could have saved you the time by pointing out the simple fact that both come from Latin roots (as do "dominion"). Marc pasquin 20:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It is an accepted history fact that William the Conqueror's victory at the Battle of Hastings 1066, established a new age for the Kingdom of England. The Norman-French nobility ruled their Germanic subjects. At the time of 1066, Old French (rather Norman French), and Old English (rather Anglo-Saxon) were forced together as a "shot-gun marriage". After three centuries of intermarriage, the English language became the offical language of the Kingdom of England in 1362.

Old French in mainland France (which included the Duchy of Normandy) evolved into todays Modern French, whereas in the British Isles Modern English came into being. To ignore their common parentage, is to narrow-mindedly limit the arguement of the definition, and applicability of the so-called "loan-word". ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Marc Pasquin wrote,

Your research has failed to found the word "realme" in a modern french text and, unless you have found it in a modern dictionary I haven't checked, this mean once more that if the words realme (or dominion) are used in a modern french text, they have been borrowed from the english. Marc pasquin 20:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A modern French text? How modern? 2005? 2000? 1900? 1800? 1700?

In post-1790 Republican France, there was a time known as "the Terror". The Republican Government under Robespierre when all over France in search of hidden Royalists. Documents were burned, Heraldry records and Plaques destroyed, church windows with the fleur-de-lis were smashed, and people were executed en-mass.

So where do you want to start the date of "Modern French texts" to look at then?

And yet there is no record of the word "realme" in Quebec French either despite the fact that there was no Terror in Quebec as the colony was under British administration by the time of the French Revolution so your theory about Robespierre somehow being responsible for the disappearance of the word is bunk. Homey 21:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my theory could be complete bunk. I could be completely wrong. New France existed from 1604-1763 (i.e., about 159 years), and it was organised into l'Acadie, le Canada, l'Illinois, and la Louisane. New France's main population centres were Quebec City, Montreal, and New Orleans. There should be some surviving pre-1790 Revolution French Dictionaries around. Can you point me to any so I can examine them, HOTR?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Why look at pre-1790 dictionaries? If you are correct and the word "realme" was a current French word in the 1700s it should still be part of Quebec French today, particularly as Quebec remained governed by a monarchy. The fact that there is no trace of the word in Quebec French suggests that it died out before Quebec was even settled. Homey 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

One place to start is here,

The French Royal Family: Titles and Customs

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frroyal.htm#k-titles

I have been looking for any Royal Proclamation of the Kingdom of France, the awarding of Family Coats-of-Arms, documents of the French Royal Court, but so far to no avail. Not much is on-line. ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Marc Pasquin wrote,

Finaly, please do not presume as to my mind set, implying that my opinions are based on some sort of "french attitude" is not only simplistic but smack of bigotry. It might come as a terrible shock but some people might disagree with you for the simple reason that you are wrong.--Marc pasquin 20:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

(Reponse constantly deleted by HistoryBA). ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Canada still a dominion?

The term "dominion", having no clear definition, has connotations of being just one step removed from being a colony. With Statute of Westminster & Canada Act 1982, Canada is at least 3 steps away from being a colony. It is no longer a dominion of the British Empire, having no legal ties to the UK. While Canada may be one of the dominions of the Queen, it is not a dominion of any "parental" (UK) or any larger (British Empire) entity - which earlier language suggested (unclearly) it was. --JimWae 00:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The article says

As a result the term Dominion was chosen to indicate Canada's status as a self-governing colony of the British Empire (the first time it would be so used in reference to a country). This was an old British term for a type of government used in New England, and presumably resurrected for new purposes.

Canada is no longer a colony of the British Empire, so either Canada is no longer a dominion, the word dominion no longer has that (nor perhpas any) meaning, or the article needs revision--JimWae 01:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

were supplanted by the language which now appears in the constitution: "shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"

Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.

Since the explicit text (shown below) was not used, "shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [the Dominion of Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"

I am forced to conclude that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words .... THE CONSTITUTION defines "Canada" as a DOMINION. ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

- No Canada is the Dominion of Canada, I just visited Parlaiment no more than a month ago, and on the tour, they said despite its rare usage, the name "The Dominion of Canada" is still very much the official name. Add to that it is carved in the stone all over the place in that building, even in more recent carvings.--Meanie 03:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• A Parliament Hill tour guide is now an authoritative source? Ground Zero | t 13:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

To HistoryBA

I doubt the amerindians would have called themselves canadians in the days before the french colony. For one thing, there was (as far as I know) no native political entity by that name and europeans text I have read refer to them either by their tribes or as the generic "savage" or "indian".

Am I misunderstanding your sentence or was it use by the british ?--Marc pasquin 01:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't being very clear. I meant that the French originally used the term "canadiens" to refer to the aboriginals. HistoryBA 01:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not pretending I hold the truth here but this is new to me. Would you have a source? (if you do but don't remember off the top of your head, just saying "yes" is okay).--Marc pasquin 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I just made a small edit to clarify. I am sure I read this in a book edited by Gilles Gougeon, something like "The History of Nationalism in Quebec." If you give me a few days, I'll will try to find a copy and will give you a citation. HistoryBA 01:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, no sweat.--Marc pasquin 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Here it is, on page 4 of "A History of Quebec Nationalism": "When Cartier spoke of "canadiens" in 1535, he was referring to the Iroquois he had met there." I'll try to revise the article to specifically mention Cartier. HistoryBA 01:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That you mention Cartier, it make quite a lot of sense that he would be the one to have used the term that way since it would predate *any* french settlement. Thanks for that, live and learn.--Marc pasquin 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

HistoryBA: What is the beef?

What is the beef? Why are you so gung-ho about editing out my above passage. It is small, and does not constitute an undue burden to Wikipeidias Bandwidth. Additionally you are causing a "Federal Case" about a few lines on a TalkPage, and not an article?

What is your problem? ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've explained myself repeatedly and begged you to do the same. Comments like "what's your beef?" and "what's your problem?" are not constructive. The sole purpose of this talk page is to assist the editors with their work on the article. It is not a chat group, regardless of the available bandwidth. That is what the members of this community have agreed upon, for the simple reason that to do otherwise would make these talk pages unfocussed and unruly, as this page and the Talk:Canada page have become. If you disagree with this rule, you should take it up elsewhere. Otherwise you should respect it. HistoryBA 01:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Listen HistoryBA, I do not appreciate your needless editing my words on this talkpage. Frankly you are being quite petty. This is a talkpage, not an article. Contributions to articles need to be carefully reviewed, and if needs be edited. Frankly, I will drop this, as you are not worth the trouble. Be warned HistoryBA, you have needlessly pissed me off, and frankly I am now suspicious that you might in fact be someones sock-puppet and/or collaborator. ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, there is no need to make threats or engage in name-calling. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia guidelines, take it up in an appropriate forum, but please don't disregard the community spirit of this enterprise. As for your suggestion that I am a "sock-puppet and/or collaborator," anyone who reviews my lengthy contribution history will realize the allegation's lack of merit. It presumes, I might add, that I am acting in bad faith -- a violation of the Wikipedia rules. HistoryBA 01:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am gonna give you a wide-bearth, HistoryBA. I strongly suspect that you could have multiple-accounts here (i.e., a sock-puppet). I may be wrong, but "time will tell". ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Rather than giving me "wide-bearth," why not just follow the rules agreed upon by the community? Rather than accusing me of being a "sock-puppet," why not check my record? HistoryBA 01:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"I strongly suspect that you could have multiple-accounts here (i.e., a sock-puppet). I may be wrong, but "time will tell"."

Time has told. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that History BA is a sock puppet and there is no basis for your smear, AVD. History BA has a lengthy editing record. Believe it or not your behaviour stirs up a lot of people AVD, you'll just have to accept this and perhaps take the hint that your behaviour needs to change rather than tell yourself that they are all sock puppets and you're doing nothing wrong.Homey 02:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

HOTR, first off Wikipedia is not a Court of Law, so can the Lawyer-speak crap, ok. Everything for you is some damn legal arguement. For once just one, please do not take yourself so seriously. Next up, you would a made a shitty lawyer.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any legal language or "legal argument" in the pasage I wrote (unless you count the word "evidence"). Please specify, what legal argument am I using?Homey 17:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you please consider withdrawing the previous comments, which hamper our efforts to foster a community spirit here. "We can't always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility." These words come from the official Wikipedia policy on civility. See Wikipedia:Civility. HistoryBA 14:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent editions ...

By the way, HBA, the current edition reads fine. I lifted as much as I could from the Oxford Companion to Canadian History (cited in the article) to clarify both sides and reduce any ambiguities about dominion. The cited text is somewhere above. :) Forsey is dead; long love Forsey! E Pluribus Anthony 01:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your goodwill in this. I just "pissed off" ArmchairVexillologistDon, and would hate to annoy you on the same day, especially given your positive contributions to Wikipedia. HistoryBA 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem! I provided the information earlier because, as much as there has been argumentation and contributions on both sides and despite what might be apparent (i.e., the written texts), there is a body of historical and other information which might have supported a different perspective (i.e., unwritten conventions, prior/current usage, etc.) I was compelled to dig and to enhance this, and I think it's better, consequently.

And not to worry; no offence received. :) Onward ho! E Pluribus Anthony 01:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Facts of Wikipedia

Canada's name is the Dominion of Canada, period, thats what it is. Official, anyone who has ever picked up a history text book on Canada, or has gone through the Canadian education system knows that this is the legal and official name. PERIOD. Furthermore they also know it was never changed. The article has no credibility in its current form considering this falacy is even being purportrated. I'm sorry it should be changed to Dominion of Canada at once, consensus doesnt matter in an encyclopedia, facts do. The Dominion of Canada is a Fact. --Meanie 03:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

- Further Evidence this bill tabled in the Canadian House of Commons in 1994 makes reference to Canada as being the dominion of Canada - Bill

• Was the bill approved as law? Homey 17:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

- This article on the Parlaiments official website mentions a place called "The Dominion of Canada" - Library of Parliament --Meanie 03:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

So the government might not mention it, but thats just a bunch of civil servants, why not take a look in the parlaiment website, where the power is.

Meanie, I concur with your opinion that the offical name of this country is the Dominion of Canada. Something happenned on February 9th, 1867, within the Colonial Office in London, UK. Somehow, ambiguous wording got entered into the British North America Act, 1867, specifically at Section II.-Union, Clause 3. Back in 1867, no one disputed that the Dominion of Canada was created in this Constitutional Document, but today the closet Republicans, and Revisionist Historians have seized upon this Constitutional Ambiguity, to argue for the banning of the term "the Dominion of Canada," from the Wikipedia website. Alas, nothing can be done about this, until the changing-of-the-guards of the "Society of Enlightened Idiots/Yes-men" occurs.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I would ask you, plese, to consider withdrawing the words "enlightened idiots/yes-men," which clearly run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. HistoryBA 14:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to clear up disputes with ArmchairVexillologistDon

I made the following post today on ArmchairVexillologistDon's talk page. Perhaps others may wish to politely voice their point of view in order to bring this matter to a friendly resolution.

"I've noticed repeated disputes between you and other editors (including me) on some of the talk pages. Perhaps a brief discussion here can help us settle these matters without having to go to mediation or arbitration. These disputes seem to come down to two issues: (1) the relevance of the material you are posting, and (2) the tone you use in replying to comments made by others. Would you consider adding a few more words to each of your posts (especially the very lengthy ones) to explain the relevance of the material? Also, would you please consider withdrawing words and accusations that may be considered offensive to other editors?"

HistoryBA 15:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to you on my talkpage, but I will say the same here. This is a "talkpage", and not an article page. Article pages are expected to undergo vigorious "peer-review", as they are presented as fact. Talkpages are the place for discussing the contents of articles, and varying positions/opinions, on the subject at hand.

As per what I wrote above, I meant every word of it. I withdraw nothing. This is quite odd, you are asking me to withdraw my comments made in frustration for something that you summarily deleted, and were steadfast about obliterating? You have a strange sense of propriety, and consistency. I must say indeed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that nothing further is to be gained by my pursuing this matter directly with ArmchairVexillologistDon. I have therefore created a "Request for comment" to obtain the opinions of others on this issue. If I am wrong -- if I have misinterpreted the Wikipedia rules on these matters -- I would like to know. If I am correct, and ArmchairVexillogogistDon's behaviour has been inappropriate, perhaps the voices of others will help convince him and we can prevent further heartache. As I understand it, anyone can add his/her two cent's worth at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ArmchairVexillologistDon HistoryBA 01:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow. HistoryBA go for broke.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

JimWae: This is getting ridiculous

There are two Constitutional Critical places that this damn French translation are cited,

Citation (i). The Preamble (non-legally binding) of the BNA Act, 1867 (see page 4 of 1868 Bilingual Copy),

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:BNA_Act1867_FrenchPreamble_page4.gif

"une seule et même Puissance(Dominion) sous le Courounne de la Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande,"

Citation (ii). The Section II.-Union, Clause 3., (legally binding Statutes) of the BNA Act, 1867 (see page 6 of 1868 Bilingual Copy),

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:BNA_Act1867_FrenchClause3_page_6.gif

"une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada"

It is crystal-clear that DOMINION is MEANT. So much in fact that the 1868 copy TYPED OUT Puisance(Dominion) in the PREAMBLE. Why did you delete the ASCII characters "(Dominion)" from the article page?

French terms for Dominion

The French translation of the 1867 British North America Act translated "One Dominion under the Name of Canada" as "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada" using Puissance (power) as a translation for dominion. Later the English loan-word dominion was also used in French. Until 1982, French text had no constitutional equality with English text.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I checked the edit history. Your beef this time is with user:JimWae, not me. HistoryBA 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello HistoryBA, I am sorry. I apologise for the error. It was JimWae who edited out "Puissance(Dominion)", I have changed the title of this section to "JimWae", accordingly. Again, I apologise for my error.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

So how many editors is AVD clashing with now? Four? Five? I guess AVD is going to rationalise this by saying they're all "sock puppets" and not real live individual editors who disagree with him. Homey 20:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

HOTR, I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You clearly accused HistoryBA of being a sock puppet. Homey 21:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

HOTR, yes. HistoryBA was the only user (count 'em ... ONE!) for which I said that I had a suspicion of being a possible sock-puppet. Nobody else.

HOTR wrote,

So how many editors is AVD clashing with now? Four? Five?Homey 20:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, let us review this page,

Somewhat good terms: E_Pluribus_Anthony, Indefatigable,

Benign Neutrality: Ground Zero, Meanie,

Somewhat Bad terms: JimWae, HistoryBA,

Can not stand: You (HOTR).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

HOTR wrote,

I guess AVD is going to rationalise this by saying they're all "sock puppets" and not real live individual editors who disagree with him. Homey 20:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You see HOTR, HERE is where you are putting words in my mouth. Please examine your words, perhaps you might "spot-it".

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

AVD, you groundlessly and wrongfully accused HistoryBA of being a sock puppet. Rather than get your back up about him being the "only one" you so accused (as if that makes it any more acceptable) why don't you just apologise?Homey 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

HOTR, this is a matter between HistoryBA, and I. The user name of HOTR was not written about here. Kindly butt-out.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No, this is a matter between you and the wikipedia community. This is a community editing project, not a series of one-one-one brawls. If you're behaviour is offensive it's a matter for the entire community, not just your target of the moment. Homey 00:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• I removed your statement in the article that the word dominion appeared in une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada. Its appearance in the Preamble is still in the article. Why should erroneous statements be allowed to stand? I am not a sock-puppet nor a yes-man - and it would be better if challenges in section titles addressed issues rather than including editor's names --JimWae 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

JimWae, I never said that I suspected you of being a sock-puppet. The only one that I expressed that to was HistoryBA.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Frankly: all parties need to reduce the rhetoric, be less antagonistic, and get back to the task(s) at hand. Can't we all just ... get along? E Pluribus Anthony 21:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Upon further checking it appears it is not there (except in gif) - because Vexolligist never put it in, putting only the erroneous statement in. Go bother somebody else now, will you?--JimWae 21:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be directed at me. Next up,

Acte Concenant l'Union et le Gouverenment du Canada, et de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, et de Nouveau Brunswick, Ainsi que les Objets qui s'y Rattachent (30e Victoria, Chap. 3) / An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick and the Government Thereof; and for the Purposes Contected Therewith (30 Victoria, Cap 3), Typographie D'Augustin Cote, Quebec, Canada, pp. 209, (1868).

Citation (i). The Preamble (non-legally binding) of the BNA Act, 1867 (see page 4 of 1868 Bilingual Copy),

That is the Bilingual Translation of the British North America, 1867. One page 4 of this 1868 book, it reads,

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:BNA_Act1867_FrenchPreamble_page4.gif

"une seule et même Puissance(Dominion) sous le Courounne de la Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande,"

Hence inserting the ASCII characters of Dominion, next to the ASCII characters of Puissance, yielding the ASCII characters of Puissance(Dominion), is verbatum what was PRINTED in the 1868 Bilingual Version. Since you are so obsessed about quoting THE EXACT WORDS, I am surprised that you would NOT want to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS here. Yes, it is surprising of you, JimWae, indeed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I will presume this is not directed at me. :) E Pluribus Anthony 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

JimWae: One more attempt at a Civil discussion of the meaning "Dominion"

You are a rational man. Please examine the FACTS quoted below.

The Constitution Act 1982 (Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982)

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html

PART VII GENERAL, Item 53, Sub-section (2), Consequential amendments

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#VI

(2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act 1982, that refers to an enactment referred to in the schedule by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in the schedule may be cited as the Constitution Actfollowed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.

Constitution Act 1867 (Consolidated 1867 to 1982)

(i.e., the British North America Act 1867, constantly amended up to 1982)

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#pre

'II. UNION

Declaration of Union

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. (4)

Now, in 1982, one can clearly see that the Feudal Rank of this country IS STILL a Dominion. Why do you argue that Canada is not a Dominion? (equal in RANK to Kingdom, Realm, Union). ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Constitution Act 1982 use the term dominion even once?Homey 00:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The Canada Act 1982 contains the Constitution Act 1982, which in turn contains the Constitution Act 1867 (consolidation from 1867 to 1982),

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html

and thus yes ... it does use the term Dominion. I quoted it above. ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello to you all! As this discussion has been ... extended, again (by all parties), I will weigh in on this again only insofar as to remind everyone of a prior, authoritative reference I cited here, indicating that 'dominion' was the "title" (not name, per se) conferred at the country's onset, is disused, and also requires a constitutional amendment to change it. (Another reference is here.) The current article/section is accurate in describing this matter. That's it for me. E Pluribus Anthony 02:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The words

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

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

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

Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.

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

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

I am forced to conclude that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional Source citing "Dominion" term in the Canada Act 1982

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/ccskeywords/constitutional_acts.html

The ‘Constitution Acts’ are a set of statutes enacted by the Imperial Parliament, beginning with the Constitution Act, 1867 ((U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5), and culminating in the Constitution Act, 1982 (being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11), that lay down much of the framework of government in Canada. There are thirteen statutes in total. Of these, the 1867 and the 1982 Constitution Acts are the most important.

The first of these statutes brought the three original confederating colonies of British North America into the Dominion of Canada together, divided that Dominion into four provinces, and distributed jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments, either exclusively or concurrently (see division of powers). Other provisions create and partially define the powers of the executive and legislative branches of both the federal and provincial governments and the superior courts. The second of these statutes, inter alia, contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provisions regarding the rights of aboriginal peoples, and procedures for constitutional amendment.

The other eleven statutes alter the legal framework established by the Constitution Act, 1867, either by amending the text of that statute, or conferring new powers or imposing new obligations on the federal government and/or the provinces. For example, the Constitution Act, 1940 (3-4 George VI, c. 36 (U.K.)) amended section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to add unemployment insurance to the list of areas over which the federal government has jurisdiction.

It would be a mistake to regard these statutes as exhaustive of the Constitution of Canada. First, according to section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Constitution of Canada consists of not only these statutes, but also a number of other imperial statutes and orders, as well as Canadian statutes. The most important of these admitted British colonies in existence at the time of Confederation to Canada (e.g. Newfoundland) and created the Prairie provinces (e.g. Alberta). Second, as Peter Hogg has argued, this list omits a number of statutes and imperial instruments which create and define the powers of important institutions, and hence which are of a constitutional nature, such as the Supreme Court and Exchequer Courts Act, 1875 (S.C. 1875, c. 11; now called the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26), and the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada, 1 October 1947. Third, reflecting the largely unwritten nature of the British constitutional order out of which much (but certainly not all) of our Constitution emerged, the Canadian Constitution has a significant unwritten component, consisting of common law rules alterable by ordinary legislation (e.g. prerogative powers of the Crown), unwritten rules which prevail over inconsistent legislation (see Reference Re Quebec Secession and secession), and legally unenforceable rules of political morality (see convention).

Submitted by Sujit Choudry

Sources:

P.W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, looseleaf (Toronto: Carswell, 2001).

Canada's name: sources — the ongoing revenge

Hello to you all! In addition to my two prior citations (here and here.) wanting to clarify the status and usage of the term dominion, here are a couple more (and clear references, at that) from the The Canadian Encyclopedia:

[1] [2]

As well, I think that is valid, AVD; thanks! It's also important, though, to not let this overwhelm our discussions (remember: links generally suffice :)) and to not be bogged down by them (addressed to all parties). I have made a mild edition to the article to reflect all of this source material. I think that's truly it for me. Thanks! Ta! E Pluribus Anthony 19:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you might want to reword the sentence you've included in the article as it seem to imply that "Dominion" is indeed the name (and thus having closed the discussion). the citation are from private endeavours (not governmental) and so are just as likely to comit mistake as anyone else (this wiki included). Maybe it could be said that *some* consider it to be the name ?--Marc pasquin 01:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary. Actually, I've carefully made editions distinguishing title, not name, and have provided authoritative sources to support these contentions. This also answers any questions or discussions about the explicit or implicit meaning of the term (as name or title) of dominion, which is still occurring with others here on Wikipedia and (oversimplification) between 'monarchists' and 'republicans' at large. And while any references/sources can be construed as bias or erroneous, I believe these citable references add credence to all of our discussions, thereby favouring 'neither'. (On the other end, if it was noted that the name and title are no longer used or not in the books, I'd include that, too.) Make sense? Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 02:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Oi.

The British North America Act 1867 defines,

(i). the Feudal Rank (i.e., title) of this country as a Dominion (equal in Feudal Rank to a Kingdom, Realm, or Union),

(ii). the long form name of this country was left UN-DEFINED,

(iii). the short form name of this country was defined as Canada.

Items (i)., (ii)., and (iii). occured within the Colonial Office in London, UK, on the date of February 9, 1867. This country is a DOMINION.

Usually a country defines its long form name, which is then known as its long form offical name. Next, the short form name(s) are un-offically derived from the LONG FORM OFFICAL NAME.

CANADA BROKE THAN TRADITION ON FEBRUARY 9, 1867.

(I don't know why).

Examples,

Israel

(i). Feudal Rank: None (un-specified),

(ii). long form name: The State of Israel,

(iii). short form name: Israel.

Macedonia

(i). Feudal Rank: None (a declared Republic),

(ii). long form name: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

(iii). short form name: Macedonia.

America

(i). Feudal Rank: None (a declared Republic),

(ii). long form name: The United States of America,

(iii). short form name(s): America, the United States, the States.

Britain

(i). Feudal Rank: Kingdom

(ii). long form name: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

(iii). short form name: Great Britain, Britain, the United Kingdom, Britannia.

Canada

(i). Feudal Rank: Dominion

(ii). long form name: None (un-offically the Dominion of Canada),

(iii). short form name: Canada.

Australia

(i). Feudal Rank: Dominion,

(ii). long form name: The Commonwealth of Australia,

(iii). short form name: Australia,

New Zealand

(i). Feudal Rank: Dominion,

(ii). long form name: None (un-offically the Dominion of New Zealand)

(iii). short form name: New Zealand.

(Note: the EXACT TEXT of the Royal Proclamation of Sept. 9, 1907, taking effect on Sept. 26, 1907 could clear this up if Dominion of New Zealand is offical or not).

Ireland

(i). Feudal Rank: None (a declared Republic),

(ii). long form name: None (un-offically the Republic of Ireland),

(iii). short form name: Eire (Irish Celtic for Ireland).

South Africa

(i). Feudal Rank: None (a declared Republic),

(ii). long form name: The Repubulic of South Africa,

(iii). short form name: South Africa.

Oi. ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello AVD! Thanks for your reiteration; note distinctions between name and title, which are clearly stated and referenced and support this. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 02:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello AVD! Thanks, but this is unnecessary; see my prior note.

However, you may want to create a table – or even an article! – listing all short/long - local/official names for countries worldwide; I don't think one exists in Wikipedia, though related articles exist (e.g., on etymology). However, do not do this here. And now that I have some time, as per our discussions earlier, I'm going to consolidate some text.  :) Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 03:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Howdy E Pluribus Anthony,

Okkie dokkie, consolidate away eh!

Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Great; ditto! :) E Pluribus Anthony 05:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What is a dominion?

The citation from the Canadian Encyclopedia has 2 issues. First, it was written by Forsey - and thus second, no encyclopedia (not even Wikipedia) is the last word on anything. Some contend that "dominion" is a title - that is a reasonable interpretation - but not the only reasonable interpretation. Some contend "dominion" was meant to be descriptive - like republic or kingdom. It is unclear which it is. If it is a description, it need not always be amended in words -- deeds may do the amending. The British Empire is no more, so if dominion means anything still, it does not mean what it meant in 1867. Relevant (though perhaps I just cannot find it), I see no mention that Canada is no longer divided into 4 provinces--JimWae 06:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Look-it JimWae, the British Empire became the British Commonwealth. The British Commonwealth is still around today.

"Dominion" today means an independent country that chose to remain apart of the British Commonwealth, with the Constitutional-Monarch of the UK as their Figure-Head of State.

Clear enough for you?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I did not "remove" any citation, I moved it. Now you've reverted & it again says (in effect) "Canada's title IS X, as well some contend Canada's title is X." Wikipedia NPOV policy prevents taking sides on an issue. Just because you can find something written by Forsey in the Canadian Encyclopedi that takes a side on this issue does not mean the issue is settled--JimWae 06:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are a rational man. Please examine the FACTS quoted below.

The Constitution Act 1982 (Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982)

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html

PART VII GENERAL, Item 53, Sub-section (2), Consequential amendments

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#VI

(2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act 1982, that refers to an enactment referred to in the schedule by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in the schedule may be cited as the Constitution Actfollowed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.

Constitution Act 1867 (Consolidated 1867 to 1982)

(i.e., the British North America Act 1867, constantly amended up to 1982)

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#pre

II. UNION

Declaration of Union

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. (4)

Now, in 1982, one can clearly see that the Feudal Rank of this country IS STILL a Dominion. Why do you argue that Canada is not a Dominion? (equal in RANK to Kingdom, Realm, Union).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, JimWae; however, one: Forsey, a staunch traditionalist, was also among Canada's leading constitutional experts - moreso I think than any contributors to Wikipedia. Two: while some may contend (e.g., not limited to Wikipedians) that Dominion is merely a description (and please provide or reiterate a citation or two for this), I have definitely provided two external references (and somewhat recently published, after the Canada Act '82) that support the contention that it is more: a title, but not a name (Oxf. Comp. to Cdn. History & Cdn. Encyclopedia) ... the latter being a foremost compendium of Canadian information; this provides more credence to this position. The distinctions between Canada, Dominion, and (separately) Dominion of Canada are quite clearly stated in that section of the article as is.

And while no production is ideal, neither is ours. As well, just because you are inferring a meaning from historical developments through your own 'lens' and do not have access to or cannot reconcile a suitable definition for the term – your interpretation – that doesn't invalidate cited references otherwise (e.g., that it describes a self-governing ex-Brit territory). I am not taking sides (methinks): if I learned of information the other way (i.e., Dominion is an unofficial title, etc.), I'd equally state that, but I have not been so compelled based on this information. Until you can disprove this, it should stay, or at most be massaged. E Pluribus Anthony 06:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW: you edited 'directly' cited text (not the ref) without appreciably supporting your claim, obfuscating the meaning/intent of what was stated; that is inconsistent with NPOV and verifiability guidelines. E Pluribus Anthony 06:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And I have added 'contentions' to relevant positions to balance them. E Pluribus Anthony 06:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero: The Electorate of Canada?

Moved to AVD Talkpage http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon#Attempt_to_avoid_a_larger_dispute

AVD: I don't like to point this out, but your prior posting is largely inappropriate. I recommend you remove the section; to use an adage: let sleeping dogs lie (down). E Pluribus Anthony 07:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Okkie dokkie E Pluribus Anthony, I will follow your advice and move it off this page. Thanks again.

Take care and best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

TY! E Pluribus Anthony 22:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. AVD, this is not a chat room or a bulletin board. Your comments towards Ground Zero have nothing at all to do with the Canada's Name article. Homey 09:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And for that reason, I will not respond here. If you want to post a personal messgae to me, you can do so on my talk page like everybody else does. Posting material not relevant to the discussion at hand is one of the issues being addressed in the RfC. Ground Zero | t 11:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominion as "title" or "identification"

(Copied from User talk:E Pluribus Anthony and User talk:Ground Zero

I noticed your edition of the 'dominion' moniker in the Canada article (in response to my edition, in response to someone else's); if I erred, I apologise. I don't necessarily want to dredge up 'old' debates and sources, and am easy either way; however, I suggest replacement of the word 'formerly' with 'infrequently' or 'rarely' (or combination thereof); of course it is disused, or used very infrequently. Moreover, the following sentence is correct if read as follows (brackets added)

Originally [a union of former French and British colonies and infrequently] styled as the "Dominion of Canada"...

Moreover, its 'former' styling/position by the federal government must be cited (though I don't dispute it), since others may and have argued it is current and still used.

I hope this helps. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 16:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't you who worked that "formally" in. User:JohnSankey, who is new to the page deleted "formerly... informally" and replaced it by "formally" [3]. I don't have a problem mentioning it in Canada, and discussing the differing positions in Canada's name. I made the change that I did because it was saying that Canada is formally (but infrequently) styled as.... Since the Govt of Canada would determine the styling, this is not correct since the govt no longers uses "D of C". I know that someone (probably you) found a 1982 bill about historical sites that mentioned "D of C". If it is as infrequent as that, I don't think it merits mention in the main article. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again; thanks for the note. I agree. It was someone else (someone more 'zealous' than me regarding this) who originally sought out the bill I cited in my prior post to you. As you know, though, I have sought additional information from reputable sources all-around to clarify this issue.

In this case, I will replace "formerly" with "infrequently" in the article (as above): it covers off on the issue (as it implies prior official use (in which case it was also infrequent), though doesn't discount current rare use). With this change, I'm also hoping to fend off other users who would continually make editions tantamount to advancing a monarchist perspective ... and I don't think that's me. :) OK? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 17:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Anthony, I disagree that "infrequently" works better than "formerly". In the past, it was not an infrequently styling -- it was quite common. In the present, there are very, very few instances of its being used. The Dominion Institute doesn't use it. The Royal Canadian Legion doesn't. The Monacrhist League doesn't. Most importantly, the "styling" would be determined by the Government of Canada, who doesn't use it. I do agree that there remains some controversy about the "official name" (i.e., the Cdn Encyclopedia references), and that is covered in the Canada's name article, but as far as styling goes, Canada is it now. Ground Zero | t 17:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for the note. As I said, I'm seeking something that's more ... conciliatory and accurate (yes: it's not used, but it still is de jure); ambivalence or disuse isn't an indicator of validity. You can probably count on additonal stragglers making these sorts of editions.

Another possible suggestion: indicate that Canada is styled as a dominion (but exclude the name 'Dominion of Canada'). Remember, though: I'm fine either way. Thanks! :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So you're suggesting (if I understand correctly):
:Originally a union of former French and British colonies and styled as a "dominion",
I think that would work. Ground Zero | t 18:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Precisely, this (wikified as such, to elaborate appropriately):

Originally a union of former French and British colonies and styled a "dominion"...

OR

Originally a union of former French and British colonies and entitled a "dominion"...

– I've provided an alternate, since a couple of the references I've cited indicate it is the title.

Take your pick! :) Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 18:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Styled" or "entitled" -- either one is good. Ground Zero | t 18:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Great! I'll make the change ("entitled"); it's a pleasure doing business with you! Now onto other matters ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am not attempting to include in the article that "dominion" IS just a description. You want to definitively state it IS a title. (Many people think it means just about next to nothing & do not concern themselves with whether it is a title or a description - no matter what Forsey says - and do not even write about it.) The burden is on you to back up your claim - and 2 sources (Oxford Comp. to Cdn. History & Cdn. Encyclopedia), at least one of which was written by Forsey with an agenda, is not enough. If you could show there is general agreement on the issue, you would have stronger basis for the claim. Right now you have only sources that make a flat out statement without even considering any alternative interpretation & thus not giving reasons why other interpretations would be mistaken. Until there is more support for the statement, it is POV. I have no objection to the alternative "styled" that you proposed. PS: Could you provide the Oxford text here please--JimWae 21:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur, I think "styled" is more appropriate in this case. Homey 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a sec! :) I am attempting to provide an accurate account/portrayal of the term. As well, I have already met the burden of proof as defined by WP:V. I've actually provided three sources (et al.):

• one (How Cdns. Govern Themselves) is a standard publication written by Forsey produced by the federal government (and continuously edited and published after his death) that is available to all Canadians wanting information about Canada and its government.

• the Cdn. Encyclopedia, while contributed to by Forsey, is edited by others and contributed to by many more.

• what's more: the relevant section in the Companion is edited and authored by other historians/academics; it merely cites Forsey as a monarchist/traditionalist. Here is the Companion ref again (provided a few weeks ago) as it was moved by another when archiving (now in Archive 1) all the ... 'lengthy' text:

... As promised, please find below the citation for the entry entitled 'dominion' on p. 183 in the Oxford Companion to Canadian History, edited by Gerald Hallowell (2004) (asterisks indicate references to other entries in the companion and, here, to relevant articles in Wikipedia):

dominion The title conferred on Canada by the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, whereby the provinces declare 'their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom'. The title was chosen over the founding fathers' preference for 'Kingdom', allegedly to mollify Canada's republican neighbour but still represent the founding monarchical principle. Beginning in the 1950s, as an affirmation of independent status and to make a break with the colonial past, a homegrown *governor general was appointed, a *national flag adopted, and 'dominion' gradually dropped from official and popular usage. Despite the anguished protests of monarchists such as Eugene *Forsey, who saw dominion as 'the only distinctive word we have contributed to political terminology' and one 'borrowed throughout the Commonwealth', the final nail was driven by the 1982 statute changing the holiday commemorating Confederation from Dominion Day to Canada Day. Ironically, defenders of the title dominion who see signs of creeping republicanism in such changes can take comfort in the knowledge that the Constitution Act, 1982, retains the title and requires a constitutional amendment to alter it. — J. E. Hodgetts

All three of these references cite dominion as Canada's title. Again, these reputable sources fully conform to relevant Wp policies about verifiability.

... and NPOV, I might add. E Pluribus Anthony 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As for what is being attempted: what are the alternate intepretations and citations, specifically regarding 'dominion'? Beyond the actual constitutional text, I don't see 'em. I have met the burden of proof; I also requested this earlier; to no avail. You must cite your 'contentions' that it is not a title or that it is something else, and you have not yet.

As well, I've no general objection to "styled", but "entitled" (particularly in retrospect) is more accurate and preferred (since it appears in at least those three sources) and the former can be perceived as obfuscating the issue. (Note that Ground_Zero and I (at my suggestion) arrived at removing DoC and replacing it with the current version since the status of DoC is more tenuous.) Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 22:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As you have "no objection" to styled while others object to entitled it's quite clear which way we need to go on this. Homey 22:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! It"Styled" is less precise (and not as 'quite clear' as stated), butand objections all-around have been cited and heard. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 22:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is not my field so I have no way to deal with the issue of a scholarly source directly. I think it was I who first introduced into this discussion (without source) that "dominion" might be considered similar to a title [4] - so I do not feel defeated by not yet having a source that takes the very obvious position opposing that view. Are extraordinary statements NPOV facts just because no scholar has cared enough to challenge them yet? --JimWae 00:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

While I am a student of Canadian political science (and biology, actually), that does not make me an authority. Besides, this is moot: your belief/position/POV of this 'extraordinary' statement – without contention or sourcing it, as I have – still does not invalidate reputable, scholarly, public references otherwise (one of which is from the very creature this is about, the Canadian government) in accordance with WP:V (et al.) I or others may provide. Frankly, if this cannot or will not be done — yet? — by anyone, such POV does not belong on Wikipedia. I challenge anyone who suggests otherwise.

As well: this is not a 'battle' (implied by your usage of defeat), it is a discussion to clarify ideas that we all have a take on ... instigated by others, but which at least I have investigated and sourced. :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• You persist in presenting the strawman version of my position. Just because an opposing scholarly view to a position just recently presented here has not yet been found, does not mean either position is validated as fact. You have verified that a particular position (that it seems was first presented by me here, btw) exists in the literature. Whether it is the only valid position or not is a separate issue. --JimWae 02:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Until your position can be substantiated and referenced, it is precisely a strawman position. Until then ... E Pluribus Anthony 03:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• You are presuming (with your edit) that a particular view is the only scholarly view. I think it might not take very long for that to be shown to be false--JimWae 03:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not presuming anything: another substantial view has not been presented, referenced, and verified as factual – yet. Wikipedia is dynamic, after all. Until then ... E Pluribus Anthony 03:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello E Pluribus Anthony,

I sincerely thank you for trying to be fair and even-handed in this debate. I strongly support the position that the Feudal Rank (i.e., title) of this country is a Dominion. The British North America Act 1867, and the Canada Act 1982 both support this position. It is just a bunch of "enlightened Wikipedians" who do not. Be carefully of them, they are "the mob" run amok.

Even Sir John MacDonald wrote that the title of this country is a Dominion.

Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; however, please refrain from categorising people any which way. The same point, without such categorisation, could have been made just as well. Further comments can be made to my talk page. E Pluribus Anthony 03:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)