Jump to content

Talk:Name of Canada/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Filling to fullfillment the etymology

What does "Stadacona" means? Etymologically at least... Its important to make the etymological meaning of Canada more complete.

CDN

Does CDN stand for "Canada DominioN"? --Henrygb 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I believe this is more a home-grown acrostic of CanaDiaN. In standards defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the ISO standard is CAN, but is perhaps easily confused with the actual word can or common abbreviation Can. As well, the ISO standard for the Canadian dollar CAD is formed from the two letter ISO country abbreviation (CA) (also harking of the internet top-level domain TLD, .ca) and initial for the currency (Dollar) used in place of the common symbol ($). As well, the International Monetary Fund uses C$ and is also recommended by the Canadian government in their official style guide, The Canadian Style. Can you dig it?  :) I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony 16:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
But that is just your rationalisation. CDN (as in cars in foreign countries) is an international convention - often with strange reasons. --Henrygb 20:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary indicates Cdn. as the abbreviation for Canadian. As yet, I haven't found any background material on whether CDN is derived differently – I've only found this online regarding distinguishing signs on vehicles, etc. – but I doubt that it means what you think it does and everything else above is valid. I recall reading somewhere about why CDN, not CAN, appears on cars elsewhere, etc. I could be proved wrong. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
List of international license plate codes states "Canadian Dominion" as do [1] [2]. --Henrygb 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm: very interesting – that seems to support your initial inquiry but flouts the dictionary, so CDN and Cdn. might have different roots. The year when CDN seems to have replaced CA (1956) coincides with when usage of dominion started waning. I wonder whether CDN was chosen so that it could clearly be distinguished from Cameroon (CAM) or to otherwise reassert Canada's autonomy after WWII?
Are there any added sources that may support what CDN means, like an official diplomatic registry? The only other thing I could find was a UN site listing the abbreviations, but not what they mean (that I can see). In any event, thanks for the information. E Pluribus Anthony 01:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The abbreviation was in use at least as early as 1914, as CDN was stamped on the identification discs of all Canadian soldiers in the First World War.Michael Dorosh 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada

Hey, I put "Dominion of Canada" in the search box intending to get to Canada, but I was redirected to this article. Just curious, is there a particular reason/Wikipedian precedent as for why "Dominion of Canada" redirects here and not Canada? Thanks. Chef Ketone 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I'd imagine it's because of the contentious nature of the name/title which, as you can see from the talk page and archives, is arguably official. This article fully details the usage and propriety of Canada's name ... and the parent article is just one more click away. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello! For our collective information and in summary regarding Canada's name and dominion: I've recently added a reference from a titular book by Alan Rayburn (a prior executive secretary of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names), Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names (which I dredged up from my library recently), that crystallises everything regarding this issue rather succinctly (with emphasis retained). On p. 18, Rayburn found that:

  • ... the title [Dominion of Canada] has not been officially dropped; it has only been suppressed, with federal, national, and central substituted as adjectives, and Canada, nation, and country used to replace the noun.
and (on p. 19):
  • When the Canadian constitution was patriated in 1982, the entire British North America Act was incorporated into it as the Constitution Act, 1867. So the word Dominion continues to be part of the official title of this country (although its legal name is strictly Canada).

I think that's it for me regarding this. Au revoir! E Pluribus Anthony 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

On page 17 Rayburn wrote:
  • I did not notice the erosion of the word from our political lexicon until it was officially dropped from the name of the July 1 holiday in October 1982. About that time, I was asked by the United Nations to confirm the official short and long names of our country. I assumed the long title was Dominion of Canada. I was wrong. External Affairs declared that Canada alone was official as both the long and the short name.
Regarding what he writes on pages 18 and 19, you won't find the phrase Dominion of Canada anywhere in the Constitution Act, 1867. It's not there. I suspect that is why Rayburn never explicitly states that Dominion of Canada has any standing. The quote from page 18 above is misleading because it includes bracketed information from elsewhere in the paragraph. In the sentence quoted above he is really only equating Dominion with federal, national and central, and he makes an interesting point. But he never states outright that Dominion of Canada has any standing either as Canada's name or as its title. How could he? External Affairs had already told him to inform the United Nations that it isn't!
Dominion is indeed the word in the constitution for what Canada is, but it is no more a part of Canada's name than Union is part of the United States' name. (Union appears in the U.S. Constitution as its title.) Just as one does not refer to the Union of the United States, one does not refer to the Dominion of Canada, even though Canada is a dominion and the United States is a union.
Jonathan David Makepeace
This has been discussed ad nauseum already on the talk pages/archives. Not only does the above not take into account numerous other authoritative sources cited – including those from the government itself (online) and the Constitution Act, 1871 – that contradict the above point of view and which anyone can verify, but the above reference from Rayburn supports notations of both, particularly:
Dominion continues to be part of the official title of this country...
Read "part". The bracketed statement from p. 18 directly follows from the earlier clause on the prior page (and after that) where "the long title was (assumed) Dominion of Canada" is stated. Rayburn also clearly diffentiates between the country's title(s) and name, legal and official.
In addition, the comparison with the US is not necessarily an apt one because (a) "union" and "united" are arguably redundant; (b) though I'm unsure of its official standing, "Union" is frequently used to refer various aspects of Americana (e.g., State of the Union Address (per its constitution), Union (American Civil War)).
Moreover, no citations have yet been provided to support the above viewpoint. Until they are or until compelled otherwise, the current comprehensive, accurate notation will be restored. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I provided the quote from Rayburn himself explicitly stating that Dominion of Canada is neither an official name or title of the country. His source was the Canadian Department of External Affairs. The Constitution Act, 1867, does not contain the phrase "Dominion of Canada." The Constitution, External Affairs, what more authoritative sources do you want? Jonathan David Makepeace
This interpretation is incomplete and challenged, since Rayburn later goes on to indicate that the title (much to his surprise) has been suppressed, etc. As above, the phrase is included in the Constitution Act, 1871. Moreover, again, at least two online sources from the federal government explicitly contradict your assessment, one stating "the title is Dominion of Canada." In light of this authoritative sourcing, I've nothing more to add. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but while Canada may have BEEN a Dominion up until 1982, and is even described as such in various documents, the NAME is the subject of the debate, and the NAME has NEVER been "The Dominion of Canada" It's no different that describing Haiti as "the island of Haiti"...that's a description, not its name. Mattwilkins 07:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure what the opinion above is meant to demonstrate ... if only intransigence. Sorry: per the Constitution and various government sources, "Dominion" remains the official title of the country. As the article also indicates, the legal name of the country is strictly Canada. And Dominion of Canada, an official though disused appellation, is no different in form or authority than (correctly) describing Haiti as the Republic of Haiti, which is that country's long-form political name. And, BTW, Haiti is on the island of Hispaniola. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Every map I have ever seen has labled Canada as The Dominion of Canada. I was always under the impression that that was its full name. But, just as we don't call "Billy Bob Smith Jr.", "Billy Bob Smith Junior", but rather refer to him as "Bill", "Billy", "mr. Smith", and on the rare occasion "Sir", we refer to The Dominion of Canada, as it is our friend, not as "The Dominion in Canada", we call it "Canada". However, as this is an Encyclopedia, meant for full names(I certaintly would not want an encyclopedia to be on first name basis with me), it would be best to use "The Dominion of Canada. Samsomite

Can you cite a few of these maps? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 05:08 Z
Maybe it's time to get a new map. I bet your "Dominion of Canada" maps don't show Nunavut. I wonder if they show Newfoundland as being part of Confederation, or separate? Ground Zero | t 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, older maps might indicate this (see first map) and there exist current maps that refer to (the Dominion of) Canada upon and after its inception, but I have yet to see a current map that refers to the current entity that way. Quizimodo (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Style and Title" means long form name

This is a very old arguement. I support the position that the long form name of the country formed on July 1, 1867, was and is today the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. The overwhelming majority (i.e., the consensus) of people here hold the view that the only name of the country founded on July 1, 1867, is simply just Canada. I support the position that this "constitutional literalist" interpretation of letter of the constitution in fact violates the spirit of constitution that the Fathers of Confederation intended (i.e., the Fathers of Confederation intent was to designate that the long form name of the country as the Dominion of Canada).

If one carefully inspects all of the relavent amendments to the British North America Act for the first 50 years of this country's existance (i.e., 1867-1917) one will note the explicit inclusion of the long form full name of the Dominion of Canada (and correspondingly use of Canada as a short form name) in every salient document.

The term Style and Title (or just Style, or Title alone) does in fact mean "the long form name". This is borne out when one studies the rules of the Order of Precedence (literally meaning "who proceeds first").

The Constitution of the Dominion of Canada was explicitly modeled on the Constitutions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921), and amended via the model of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (since 1921). To this end if one uses the doctrine of Comparative Common Law one may note the following important Constitutional Clauses,


Upon insection of The Treaty (or Act) of Union 1707

Article I. That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon the first day of May next ensuing date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain, and that the ensigns armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint, and the crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit, and be used in all flags, banners and ensigns, both at sea and land.

Article II. That the succession to the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and the dominions thereunto belonging, after Her Most Sacred Majesty, ...

Article III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain.


Therefore argument proceeds as follows, if the long form name of Great Britain in 1707 was taken to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain, then similarly the long form name of Canada in 1867 was taken to be the Dominion of Canada.

70.30.193.143 19:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Dept. of External Affairs has explicitly stated that Canada has no long form of its name. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Makepeace, the Canadian Dept. of External Affairs could say "the sky is blue", and I would double-check it. There is no legal document that the Canadian Dept. of External Affairs has produced to prove their assertion.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back, Don. You are entitled to your opinion about the Department of Foreign Affairs, as it is now called, but I will remind you that Wikipedia works by consensus, and not on the opinions of individual contributors. I encourage you not to repeat the behaviour that led to your temporary ban. So far, we have only elaborately constructed arguments like the one provided by User:70 above, and common usage over several decades, to support your contention about the long form of the name. We do not have an explicit statement in the BNA Act itself, or in another document to support it. We also have common usage of "Canada" alone over the past 50-60 years to support the contrary argument. Ground Zero | t 16:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ground Zero. It is nice to hear from you indeed. As per the content of Article Pages, I shall not engage in edit wars. They are fruitless, and it ends up in me being banned. As per Talk Pages, I shall express my opinions as I see fit, within the Wikipedia guidelines. If you review my above words they are well within the guidelines of "acceptable conduct".

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:ArmchairVexillologistDon

PS, could you please UNLOCK my UserPage, and my User-TalkPage. They are still blocked as the person who locked them has left Wikipedia. I would be most grateful if you, or someone else with Administrator Powers could do me the courtesy.

Best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can read into the above, you weren't being told to be quiet, only to respect WP:CONSENSUS. If you can do that and accept that your input is only that—input to a larger machine of decision—then what you have to say and your research skills are going to be an asset to the project. Welcome back! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy Saxifrage :) Thank you for the kind and friendly "Welcome Back". I appreciate it alot indeed. Thanks as well for the compliment on my research skills. I can be a "wee-bit of a Ferret" in that department eh. Take care, and best wishes, and see you around ole Wikipedia eh  :)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, no complaint about your comments above on the talk page -- no problem there, and I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression. I'll check to see if your pages are still locked. I somehow missed this request earlier. Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Move?

I suggest that this be moved to Name of Canada for consistency and formality. see Names of Japan, Names of Korea, Names of China, Etymology of India for similar articles. --Jiang 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While this makes sense on the surface since it seems to be a tidy way of listing all country naming articles, in practice it doesn't work. Note that all the examples with "Names of..." are plural. Somehow it just doesn't sound right in the singular form. "Canada's name" just plain sounds better than "Name of Canada."Sunray 07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with S.: while I applaud attempts at consistency, the proposed title is awkward given the overwhelming prevalence of a single term for the country – Canada (in whole or in part). Etymology of Canada or even Names for Canada might be better alternatives, but I don't see the need for the move just yet and (to my knowledge) given no standard stating otherwise. And note that there's a neat-and-tidy category – [[Category:Country name etymology]] – for these articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I support Etymology of Canada or even Names for Canada over my original proposal. but to emphasize the single term for the country, we should use parenthesis such as in Canada (name) or Canada (etymology). "Canada's name" sounds like some book or TV show... --Jiang 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with "Etymology of Canada". This article covers more than just the derivation of Canada -- it covers other names that were proposed, and the issue of what was to come before the name -- Dominion, Kingdom, etc. "Etymology would be just plain incorrect as the name of this article. I don't obejct to the other proposals. Ground Zero | t 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One major difference between this and the other articles is that most of this article is Debating the name of canada whether Dominion of canada or just Canada is the correct name, with the others just added in as a bit of other info.

Those other names could have been problems

  • Ursalia? The Royal Ursalian Mounted Police (RUMP)? HMUS Ottawa - Her Majesty's Ursalian Ship Ottawa?
  • Mesopelagia? Air Mesopelagia? PetroMes? Mesopelagian Broadcasting Company (MBC, close to NBC)?
  • Albion? The Albionian Broadcasting Corporation, right next door to the American Broadcasting Company? The Royal Albionian Mountain Police?

Thank the Fathers of Confederation for choosing Canada! GBC 01:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree: the only other one I think would've been passable, and actually isn't too bad, is Laurentia. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Better Albionian than Elbonian... Tubezone 23:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree.

-G

I read in horrible canadian histories by claire mackay that alberta (after queen victorias husband) and transylvannia were also candidates. is this true or is she just making things up? Nicholas.tan 05:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Confederation of Canada/Canadian Confederation?

The title Dominion has been dropped by Canada due to its relation with monarchy and aggravating Quebec nationalists. I wonder if anyone has recognized Canada as officially the "Confederation of Canada" or as I have heard the title "Canadian Confederation" used before, similar to Russian Federation. Could this be the unrecognized official name of Canada?

As above and herein, the legal title "Dominion" has not been dropped as it remains in Canada's constitution; similarly, "Dominion of Canada" remains an official title (see refs in the article) but it is disused and has been suppressed.
Please see the article Canadian Confederation for a treatment of the term "confederation" in this unique context. Regardless, either of those terms are not official names. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
For another example at surpressed legal stuff, look at all the rediculous un-repealed laws in the United Kingdom. The one making it legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow in York for example Stormscape 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian

The reference to a Heritage Canada Web brochure is not a valid source for the origin of the word Canada. A better source would have been a run-of-the-mill dictionary of Indians names, such as Bernard Assiniwi’s Lexique des noms indiens du Canada, or even Hurtig’s Canadian Enclyclopedia, but even such sources are not much better.

A distinction is clearly made in the academic literature between the inhabitants of the St-Lawrence Valley, the “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians,” and the Iroquois and Huron living near Lake Ontario. In the Smithsonian’s “Handbook of the North American Indians” – which has perhaps 10 or 15 thousand pages – there is a revealing map (volume 15, page ix) of Indian tribes before the Europeans arrived in numbers: the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians occupy the whole Saint-Lawrence Valley, from Cornwall to the Ïle aux Coudres (other maps suggest that the Iroquoians were present as far East as Gaspé, but this is disputed). The Smithsonian map is also found, I think, in Duane Champagne’s The Native American Almanac of 1994. Jacques Cartier thus met “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians” (sometimes called “Iroquians” or “Laurentians” when speaking of their language). In 1534, he met some who were traveling in the Gaspé région (but who lived up stream). In 1535-36, Cartier visited their villages. As for the more accessible books on Native Americans, such as O. P. Dickason’s Canada’s First Nations, the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians are usually mentioned briefly (page 50).

The word “Iroquois” is normally reserved for the five (later six) nations of the Iroquois Confederacy which, in 1535, were not in contact with any Europeans. English-language and French-language specialists insist on distinguishing Iroquois and Iroquoian. Examples : Trigger and Pendergast, page 357, referenced in article “Canada,” and Richard Dominique and Jean-Guy Deschênes’ Cultures et société autochtones au Québec (pages 33). A bit like “Germanic languages” and “German”: only one refers to English. The same Iroquois / Iroquoian distinction is found in French and German (Iroquois / Iroquoien) (Irokese / Irokesisch).

The Iroquois/Iroquoian/Huron confusion stems mostly from centuries of ignorance. For example, Henry Biggar included in his The Voyages of Jacques Cartier, published in 1924, Sir Daniel Wilson’s text “The Huron-Iroquois of Canada” which he had written in 1884. It is a speculative and totally discredited article. Later, Hurtig invited the “Former Dominion Archivist” and long-retired W. Kaye Lamb to write the article about “Canada” for his Canadian Encyclopaedia of 1985.

The word “Huron” is also excluded. In 1535 they lived in the area north of Lake Ontario. Bruce Trigger, in his The Children of Aataentsic. A history of the Huron people to 1660 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1976, pp. 224-228), makes the Huron/Iroquoian distinction and suggests that the Saint Lawrence Iroquoians were probably killed by the Hurons or the Mohawks in the late 16th century in an attempt to control the trade routes with Europeans. The Saint-Lawrence Valley was thus becoming a very dangerous area and the Iroquoians seemingly paid the price. It would also appear that some of the Saint Lawrence Iroquoian survivors were probably taken in by the Hurons, the Mohawks and the Algonquins, by force or by mutual agreement. By 1603, Algonquins and Mohawks hunted in the Saint-Lawrence Valley and conducted raids, but neither had any permanent settlements.

Next, why use imagined phonetics: “kanata” or “kaná:ta”? This practice seems to have been encouraged by Heritage Canada’s web site (referenced) and Lamb’s article in Hurtig’s Enclyclopedia (un-referenced). The only reasonably reliable source about language(s) spoken in Stadacona and Hochelaga is the writings of Jacques Cartier (or perhaps those of his ghost writer). He wrote, in his Journal of the 1535-1536 voyage which was published in 1545: “Ilz appellent une ville: Canada”. The word Canada was also on the front cover. The Harleian Mappemonde of 1536 shows “Canada” (village, region and river). Any other graphical transcription of “Canada” is pure imagination, since no other sources exist. The journal of his earlier 1534 voyage, which was published several years later in Italian, gives no additional clues. His “vocabulary” tops out at 200 odd words.

Of course, the Mohawk and Oneida dialects of Iroquois have a similar word meaning “village” or “settlement” that it written “kanata” since the 19th or 20th century when latin script was first used to transcribe them. But whether or not one believes every detail of the linguistic observations of Jacques Cartier (his list may include words from two or three dialects, or languages, used by the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians), his list of Iroquoian vocabuary is quite distinct from modern-day Mohawk (there are mohawk dictionaries for those who like word puzzles). Furthermore, Mohawk may have evolved considerably since the 16th century, especially if Iroquoian refugees were accepted into their villages. A good reference on this matter is Marianne Mithon who clearly identifies separate “Laurentian” and “Mohawk” languages (Mithon, “Iroquoian”, in “The Languages of Native America”, Austin: Univeristy of Texas, 1979, pp. 133-212). Mithon, a linguist, is not however an historian.

There is thus no apparent reason for using 19th or 20th century phonetic transcription of Mohawk when writing 16th century Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian (or “Laurentian”). This error seemingly stems of the Iroquoian/Iroquois confusion (see above). One can however legitimately underline, when discussing the origins of the word Canada, that other related languages have a similar word meaning village (Mohawk: “kanata”; Huron: “andata”). But neither is a phonetic transcription of Canada as written by Jacques Cartier. Sorry. If the navigator (or his educated ghost writer) wrote “d”, he probably meant the sound “d”. If, however, French language texts of the 16th century all used “d” when today we use or pronouce “t” in their place, then it’s a new ball game. Anyone want to try proving that?

The only question remaining is whether the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians spoke several dialects or separate languages; this linguistic diversity stems from comparative analysis of the Cartier vocabulary (linguistic comparaisons with the other languages of the Iroquoian language group) and from the observation that a single native American language was never used in 15th century woodland America over such a large area, stretching hundreds of kilometers. Its probable that they spoke at least two or more dialects or languages. But we will never know.

Thus the expression “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian,” in the sigular, is included in the new text and “kanata” is excluded. Finally, the article on the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian language is titled “Laurentian language”. It might need changing, but the title follows the lead of the wiki articles on linguistics and most texts on Native American languages.

Of course, no original research is involved here. It's all copied from basic academic texts about the Iroquoian. However, if someone wants to use "kanata" or "huron-iroquois", they should find a reputable source (i.e. academic research) and not "topical" information from government web-sites, unsigned, that is not worthy as a reference for a Wiki. Its fun information, good for the kids, sometimes lively, but not serious. If it were serious, the civil servant who wrote it would have signed it or published it somewhere (like the statisticians of StatCanada who sign all their work).

Only one man wrote anything about the language of the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoian. This last sentence is not original research: I stole it from Mithon who wrote: "All data from Laurentian are contained in two word lists recorded during the sixteenth century." (Mithon, page 140). Although she is not an historian, as a linguist specializing in Iroquoian languages, her opinion in this matter is probably definitive.

Finally, I also cut a short reference to the Mohawk name of the Saint-Lawrence River. Interesting, but not relevant here since the Mohawks were not in contact with Europeans in 1535. In any case, the full name is to be found in the article on the Saint Lawrence River. Joseph B 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

St. Lawrence Iroquoians in the news!

St. Lawrence Iroquoians are in the news. On Friday, August 18th 2006, the Premier of Québec issued a new release about a major discovery at Cap-Rouge: the Cartier-Roberval settlement of 1541-1543 was unearthed by archeologists. And they found bit of "Iroquoian" pottery, which of course helps to date the site (carbon-14 helped too). And the French-language section of CBC broadcast on 28 septembre 2003 a detailed report about the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and an archeological site in Saint-Anicet, Quebec. And Parks Canada's site about the Cartier-Brébeuf National Historic Site of Canada in Quebec City presents a rather detailed overview of the "St-Lawrence Iroquoians". The English-Language version is badly translated ("St. Lawrence Iroquois"), but it should be remarked that (1) the words "Huron" and "Mohawk" were not used and that (2) the French-Language version uses the correct name of "Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent".

So, recent stuff written by the Office of the Premier of Quebec, CBC-TV and Parks Canada seem to have a bit more weight than Canadian Heritage's unsigned blurb about a so-called "Huron-Iroquois" language that never existed. If they had written "an Iroquoian" language, it would have been technically correct since the Iroquoian language family includes everone: Huron, Mohawk, Oneida and Laurentians (or "St. Lawrence Iroquoians"). But they didn't, and it isn't.

Anyway, Trigger's article in the 15-volume "Handbook of North American Indians" trumps government PR and TV-journalism. Joseph B 11:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Georges Sioui of the Wendat Wendake village, near Quebec City, recognized, in his published M.A. thesis "For an Amerindian Autohistory" (Montreal: McGill-Queen's, 1992, English translation) that the "St. Lawrence Iroquoian" label is indeed correct. He goes on to say that the St. Lawrence Iroquoian refugees that migrated to Huronia in the 16th century had such an impact on the Wendats that, when they migrated from Huronia to the Quebec City area 100 years later (because of wars), they had become "Wendat-Iroquoians". Interesting, but only relevant when discussing the 17th century. Joseph B 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
A final note about the use of Canada's name in published maps and such: the 1547 date is interesting -- since the Harleian mappemonde appears to have been published in 1547 -- but it came two years after Cartier "Récit". Thus, I suggested "By 1545, European books and maps began referring to this region as Canada." Joseph B 10:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly revert war

Sorry for butting in here, but the repeated reverting of Joseph B's edits is rather silly. Joseph B has done good work researching the literature on Canada's name using scholarly sources and documenting them here, yet it seems that some editors feel a Heritage Canada web site trumps all modern scholarship. We delight when we find errors in Britannica, yet an unsourced government web site seemingly directed at children is sacrosanct????!!!! To recapitulate Joseph B's evidence from reliable sources:

  1. "Canada" was first used by Jacques Cartier;
  2. He got the word from people living along the Saint Lawrence;
  3. "kanata/canada" is not a Huron word, it is “andata”, hence the Heritage Canada web site is wrong;
  4. According to Bruce Trigger, McGill anthropologist and perhaps foremost authority on the Hurons, they did not live in the Saint Lawrence valley in the 16th Century;
  5. Scholarly sources indicate that the Saint Lawrence valley was inhabited by a different people, now called the "Laurentians" or “Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians” in the 16th Century.
  6. For similar reasons, it can't be a Mohawk word, as Trigger and Marianne Mithun have established they did not live along the Saint Lawrence in the 16th century and they spoke a different language.

We might want to discuss the "Huron-Iroquois" idea in the Name origin section, but clearly indicate thyat current scholarship considers it wrong. Luigizanasi 15:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no issue with the scholarly nature of James B's sources per se; but to argue, discount, and then remove official sources which are just as valid (one of which (Rayburn) is the prior chair of the standing committee on geographical name) is the height of hubris. That is silly. If editors cannot integrate other viewpoints/content while retaining cited information, and I might be guilty of that in recent editing (mea culpa), don't. 65.95.236.235 16:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look up Rayburn's work (the relevant pages are available on Google books), you will note he does not use the word "Huron" or "Iroquois" from page 13 to 15 where Canada's name is discussed: he uses "Saint Lawrence Iroquoian", just like Joseph B. On Canada meaning land bit, Rayburn is just quoting someone else on this (André Thevet) and offers no opinion. Incidentally, it seems Rayburn is wrong about Cartier saying the Saint Lawrence Iroquoians used "kanata" (p.13). Quoting Cartier from the Gutenberg edition (page 48), "Ilz (sic) appellent une ville Canada", not "kanata" Luigizanasi 20:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
My original position stands. If R. is incorrect, and I'm willing to admit that, please provide authoritative documentation indicating that or supporting said changes: if recent revelations are in fact valid, I'm sure there is a body of literature that will clearly support and corroborate this position? I see editor interpretations based on original source matter, but no reputable sourced dissents with information contained therein. That is, I don't necessarily see the corroboration, as of yet. Just because content is apparently contradictory and disagreeable ("wrong") to a clutch of editors, who perhaps are succumbing to groupthink, that is no reason to discard what is or might be equally valid information. I see little here that obviates WP:V or WP:NPOV. I appreciate that an editor has researched the situation but integrate that content with existing content, which wasn't done ... and now recent 'reverts' are being tagged as 'vandalism' -- that's adroit! I am not as willing to dismiss government sources indicating this or that just yet; besides, much of the information contained therein is apparently derived from the National Archives ... and I know whose interpretation I will defer to regarding the origin of said names. 65.95.236.235 22:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Better references could of course be integrated into the article, but wholy discredited works needs to be dropped. Discussion here and elsewhere (article:Canada) covers this material. Why not discuss and confront the relative merit of sources here. An "info-sheet" from Canadian Heritage is not Wiki-worthy (when multivolume specialist encyclopedias are available, not to mention the works of linguists and others). Vandalism is, in part, reverting without discussion and explaination. Thus the considered use of the word "vandalism". Joseph B 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the only reference to "National Archives" comes from a 79 year old retired "Dominion archivist", librarian by profession, who wrote the "Canadian Enclyclopedia" article "Canada". His personal qualifications are obviously in doubt, since Native American specialists consider his theory to be totally without merit and completely at odds with archeological and linguistic evidence unearthed since 1950. In any case, would a reference from a deputy director of the Canadian Museum of Civilisation, written by someone educated in the later half of the 20th century, help? See James F. Pendergast, The Confusing Identities Attributed to Stadacona and Hochelaga, Journal of Canadian Studies, volume 32, number 4, Winter 1998, pages 149 to 167. I respectfully suggest that his arguments be adressed before reverting to a discretited version of the origin of the word "Canada" and use of "kanata". Primary sources (Jacques Cartier) and modern linguists (Mithun and Lounsbury) exclude this theory. The word was published as "canada" in 1545. Joseph B 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please: screaming 'vandalism' is neither considered nor appropriate. Pot, meet kettle. You still persist in removing information that YOU and pliant editors feel is unworthy and have discredited (i.e., not reliably); moreover, 'obviously' etc. are clear weasel words that cast skepticism on the contributor. I respectfully suggest that you integrate your contributions with the information already in the article (and -- yes -- please provide better references), not to remove what you disagree with as you have been doing. Perhaps you should even write to Canadian Heritage with your information/revelations. Until you do, I will continue to restore cited, verifiable information ... which is all that Wp requires 142.150.134.50 15:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In absence of any effort to discuss -- and in the absence of any attempt to propose considered arguments --, article reverted to previous (well documented) version. Joseph B 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In absence of reliable discreditation and your continued removal of cited information, the article has been reverted to the previous (and well documented) version, and this will continue until you either integrate said content with existing content or overcome your 'sophistry' and provide sources for the reliable discreditation -- and that doesn't mean by YOU or other effectively anonymous Wikipedians -- of the topics at hand. 142.150.134.52 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
When several sources exist (and all of them can be cited), one must choose. With historians, linguists and specialist encyclopedias on one side, and a government blurb on the other, the choice is obvious. If all reliable sources are to be considered sophistry, then abstain. At least, read the wiki policy on reliable sources. Joseph B 17:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
When several sources exist, YOU must not choose: read WP:NPOV and WP:V (WP:CITE). Integrate your revelations with others or refrain from editing. Given that you have not yet provided reputable discreditation of cited matter -- and until you do -- I will continuously restore this information. And I do not consider scholarly sources sophistry per se: I consider your subjective and (possibly erroneous) promulgation of this information above all else to be. 65.92.172.20 17:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

When a source is dead wrong

When one of the many "sources" is simple wrong, a choice is necessary. No need to integrate "The Borg are living beings." and "The Borg are fictional characters". One is wrong (guess which).

In the case of this article, the Hurons did not live in the St. Lawrence River valley in the early 16th century. Georges Sioui, from the Huron village near Quebec City, has emphatically stated as much in his "For an Amerindian autohistory: an essay on the foundations of a social ethic", published in 1992. No source states otherwise (and user 65.92.172.20 / 142.150.134.52 has furnished no counter-argument or credible source).

As for the Mohawks, they lived in the Mohawk River valley (hence their name) in the 16th Century (have a look at the "Handbook of North American Indians", especially volume 15 and 17, which was edited by the Smithsonian Institution). The "Smithsonian", as it is called, is none other than the U.S. federal museum of natural history. And why not check out the writings of Marianne Mithun who, at least, speaks Mohawk and is the most reputable scholar on Iroquoian languages (but then again, as I have previously mentioned, she is not an historian).

Finally, on could go so far, as Mithun suggests, and insist that the inhabitants of Stadacona, Hochelaga and the other villages near Quebec City spoke several languages, in which case, one could surmise that the word "canada" comes from one of the languages spoken by these people(s). One could even underline (preferably elsewhere) that two other Iroquoian languages have a similar word for "village": Oneida and Mohawk (generally written "kanata" since the 19th Century). Thus, any reference to the Mohawk word for "big river", that starts with the same letters, is superfluous. Joseph B 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The key here is in your opinion, which means little. In demonstration, even your first statement demonstrates fallacious argumentation and your unwillingness or inability to integrate disparate points of view. Actually: "The Borg are fictional cyborgs" ... and as we all know, "cyborg" is a portmanteau of cybernetic organism -- i.e., living.
Regarding your analysis, I defer to my prior comments: please provide reputable discrediation of facts not in agreement with yours ... which you have yet to through your gibbering. Otherwise, I've nothing else to add. 216.13.88.86 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor note

I found this comment buried in the article: 'modern Spanish word for "here" is "aqui". "Acá" is an archaic form. No es verdad... aqui and acá are just two different ways of saying the same thing. The thing about the Spaniards writing acá nada is just BS anyway, it wouldn't be written that way, either there'd be a comma in there, or it'd be written Aqui (or allí) no hay nada. It's pretty difficult to believe they would have written that, there was and is a big honkin' land mass there, last time I checked. Tubezone 03:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cañada

Not sure if anyone has researched this or not, but another possible origin I found is the Spanish word Cañada which means glen. Although there is an ñ instead of a plain n, it could have undergone some form of change over time due to the increasing Anglophone population.Gorovich 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

After looking a bit more, it seems there are a few major glens and at least one place named Glen in Canada, which could also give this theory some weight. This could be similar to the Viking tale of Vinland which was also named after something the explorers first found, vines. Perhaps the Spanish explorers found glens and decided to name it Cañada. Gorovich 05:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is original research and has no bearing on the name for Canada. It is a coincidence. The Spanish had almost nothing or nothing to do with the exploration of the lands that became Canada, and I am certain you would not be able to find an authentic Spanish map or document with any evidence pointing to this theory. Hu 06:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that's what the dictionary says, but it's not that common, usually a glen would be arroyo or valle, although the Guia Roji lists 12 places in Mexico whose names start with cañada (vs. 20 that begin with arroyo and 30 that begin with valle) Also, the ñ has a y sound after it, it's pronounced "canyatha", and the spelling probably would've been corrupted in translation. Also, the Spaniards probably would've called the place pantana (for the muskeg swamps), or more likely given it a religious name, eg: the first place they landed in Mexico, they named Vera Cruz (True Cross). Any way , it sounds pretty implausible. Tubezone 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was just an idea. Never said it was the word of God or anything. Adiós. Gorovich 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought a bit more about this, and if you look at Spanish naming habits, they usually use either (1) a description (eg: Florida, meaning flowery) (2) a religious name (eg: Santo Domingo, San Antonio, etc), (3) co-opt a native name (eg: México, Texas) or (4) copy a name from Spain (eg: Guadalajara). cañada could mean reedy, as in caña, cane or reed. Still, I think the native american provenance is better supported by what's known, although the Portuguese and Spaniards as I recall, did fish off the Canadian coast, even as far back as the 16th century. Tubezone 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Name Origin

There's currently a weasel-words tag on the Name origin section of this article. No doubt this is due to the opening sentence: "The name Canada is believed to have originated around 1535 from a Wendat (Huron-Iroquoian) word, kanata..." Do we really need to say "believed"? Almost every modern reference accepts that Canada came from kanata or a similar First Nations word. Most of the argument on this subject seems to be around which word from which First Nations language (see above). I think the references support changing this to a definitive statement, eliminating the "is believed to have from the above. I realize that NPOV requires us to include alternative theories, but we are permitted to give greater weight and prominence to the most commonly accepted version. -Eron 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the section to state that Canada came from kanata as this reflects the most broadly accepted view. Alternative theories can still be mentioned of course, though I would like to clean the aca nada paragraph up a bit once I can check a couple more references. -Eron 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I put the reference to "canada" back. Check the discussion above as well as Jacques Cartier's book from 1545. He clearly writes that the inhabitants of Stadacona used the word "canada" for "village". A first hand account published only a few years after his visit. The spelling "kanata" comes from two related languages of the Iroquoian Language Family group, namely Mohawk and Oneida, as they were first writen with latin script in the 18th century. As for the origins of the word Canada, there is no doubt. Of course, how do we name the people of Stadacona? Academic literature suggests St. Lawrence Iroquoians; the language is often called Laurentian language. Joseph B 14:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't change the word in the intro to 'kanata'; it has been that way for some time. And I did review Cartier's book and the discussion, thank you. My concern was to remove the weasel words tag by making a clear statement that Canada originated from a First Nations word, in line with the accepted historical interpretation. As to which language, that isn't something I am qualified to comment on, although I wonder how we can debate between 'kanata' and 'canada' when discussing words from languages that did not have written forms. - Eron Talk 15:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The weasel words should indeed be removed, since Jacques Cartier's account is quite clear. As for the spelling of the word, we have only Jacques Cartier's account ... and he (or his ghost-writer) wrote "canada". No other primary source exists about the language of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and since the French alphabet it pretty much unchanged since 1535, there is no reason to second-guess Cartier. In any case, we would need an expert on 16th century French pronunciation. As for the word "kanata", which is often used, it stems from 18th century transcriptions of the Mohawk and closely related Oneida languages. Nowadays, the Mohawk correct spelling is "kaná:ta", with two accents. Cheers! Joseph B 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the origin of Canada's name back to kanata. The official website of the Canadian government states that Canada was derived from kanata. Here is the link from the official website of the Canadian government. http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/education/prov_e.php

User:Scanadiense 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted it back. Please read the (long) discussion on this issue (above). The Government's standard brochure is wrong. Cartier's book came out in 1545 and he wrote, speaking of the inhabitants of Stadacona, "ilz appellent un village canada". Can't get much clearer than that. The "kanata" version stems from 18th or 19th century transcriptions of the Mohawk word also meaning "village" (the word is written "kaná:ta" in modern Mohawk, with two accents). And, finally, the Mohawk were not in contact with Europeans (French, Dutch, English) at this time. If still in doubt, see Laurentian language and the sources cited there. Joseph B 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If the correct transliteration of the word is "kanata", it is irrelvant how it was transliterated at the time. The question is only what, using modern transliteration rules, the spelling would be. Lexicon (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Since only one person ever wrote anything in the St. Lawrence Iroquoian language, his spelling is definitive. Jacques Cartier wrote two lists of vocabulary, the first of which was published in 1535. And the Iroquoian word word for village was canada. Joseph B 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Naming of Canada

The Naming of Canada 

    Three explorers were hiking through a vast forest that would eventually become Canada.

"You know," said the first explorer, "we should name this vast forest we're hiking through."

"I know," said the second explorer. "We'll each pick a letter and then make a name out of that."

"Good idea," said the third explorer. "You go first."

"Okay," said the first explorer. "C, ay."

"My turn," said the second explorer. "N, ay."

Unfortunately, before the third explorer could choose a letter, a bear jumped out of the trees and killed and ate all three explorers. Eventually, some guy came along and named the country after his aunt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.130.118.170 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Use of the Inuktitut Kanata

The people of Nunavut, who also include Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun as official languages alongside English and French, use the word "Kanata" for Canada. I have added it at the beginning of the article (in the form of a typical language differentiation), but I did not put it in the infobox in the upper-right because I am not sure if this is legally recognized on the federal level in Canada. Anyone know any more on this, and if it's okay to add this in the infobox? --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody removed the syllabics (Inuktitut: ᑲᓇᑕ Kanata) from the main page during the last rounds of the revert war regarding using "Dominion". Before restoring them, I would like to discuss it. The reason given for the omission is that Inuktitut is not an official language of Canada as a whole. However, it is an official language for Nunavut. Anybody else's thoughts? --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada again

An anonymous editor made some argumentative edits not at all in an encyclopaedic style, that I have reverted, on the issue of "Dominion". The most important edit was:

Amendments to the British North America Act made in the 1920s used the term "Dominion of Canada" and referred to the country as the "Dominion". These amendments were included with the B.N.A. Act in the Constitution Act of 1982. Therefore, the official name of the country is The Dominion of Canada, and 'Canada' is merely a legally-acceptable abbreviation of this.

We have addressed this argument before. I really don’t see why anyone thinks it makes sense. The 1867 Constitution defined the new country to be “One Dominion under the name Canada”, not “under the name the Dominion of Canada”. The argument above goes that the 1920 amendments changed the name from “Canada” to “the Dominion of Canada” by usage. (I do not accept this argument, and few others who have been involved in this on-going argument do.) But yet the proponents of this argument do not accept that the name was then changed back to “Canada” by subsequent usage, including in constitutional documents, beginning in the 1950s. It really seems that some monarchists/traditionalists are only interested in supporting their desire for the commonly-used (but not official) old name to be the “official” one. The evidence appears clear that “Canada” is the official name, and that “Dominion of Canada” is merely a legally-acceptable extension of this. Canada is a dominion, so it is not incorrect to describe it as “the Dominion of Canada”, but there remains no constitutional or legal document that says “the official name of the country is the Dominion of Canada”. The only definition of the name remains the one that I have cited above. Ground Zero | t 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Ground Zero, you are incorrect. The short form name is Canada. The long form name is in dispute. I support the position that the long form name is the Dominion of Canada. You however do not. Unfortunately the (un-informed) majority of the voting Wikpedians concurn with your errorenous view.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1867 Constitution defined the new country to be “One Dominion under the name Canada”, not “under the name the Dominion of Canada”. There is no constitutional or legal document that says “the official name of the country is the Dominion of Canada”. Ground Zero | t 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ground Zero, a King/Queen rules a Kingdom, Dominion, Union, Commonwealth (i.e., these four country designations are all of the same Feudal Rank).
Ground Zero, a King/Queen rules a Kingdom, Dominion, Union, Commonwealth (i.e., these four country designations are all of the same Feudal Rank).
The Constitution of the Dominion of Canada (founded 1867) was explicitly (see Preamble BNA Act 1867) modelled on the Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1927), and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (post-1927).


The long form names of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800), and Dominion of Canada (founded 1867) suffer similiar repressions here on Wikipedia.
For the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800), its long form name is defined in the Act of Union 1707, via the FIRST TWO ARTICLES (i.e., first two clauses),
United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800) Act of Union 1707
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707
Article 1 (name of the new kingdom)
That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain:


Article 2 (succession to the throne)
That the Succession to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of the Dominions thereunto belonging after Her Most Sacred Majesty,


ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So I'll take that as a "no", i.e., that you do not have any legal or constitutional document that says "the name [or long form name] of Canada is the Dominion of Canada". All you seem to be willing to offer is extrapolations that you have made yourself which qualify as original research. As you know, Wikipedia is not the place of original research. Regards, Ground Zero | t 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Ground Zero, you presume to much (as per usual). Next, you invoking the label of original research is your typical defense against an "inconvinent historical truth".
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No, Ground Zero's quite correct: in the absence of any document that formally and explicitly establishes "Dominion of Canada" as the country's official name, everything else is heresay and extrapolation. The country is called Canada, and it is a Dominion, but it is not officially called the "Dominion of Canada" in the same way that the country is called Canada, and is a kingdom, but is not officially called the "Kingdom of Canada." --G2bambino 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino, no that is incorrect. The long form name the Dominion of Canada was established in the next citing document reference . It was not in the British North America Act 1867, but it is found in the Rupert's Land Act 1868, the Manitoba Act 1870, and the British North America Act 1871. They explicitly cite the long form name of the country as the Dominion of Canada. Thus, by the British Commonwealth of Nations Constitutional Convensions, the Dominion of Canada was offically designated to "Canada".
ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So once again, there is no document that sets out explicitly that there is a long form name -- it is only by convention. And so by the conventions of the last sixty years, when "Dominion of Canada" has not been used, the only name of the country is Canada. Ground Zero | t 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ground Zero, in the phrase(s),
Act of Union 1707 (Article 1)
"One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain"
British North America Act 1867 (Clause 3)
"One Dominion under the Name Canada"
The Preamble of the BNA Act 1867 explicitly states that the Constitution of Canada is based directly on that of Great Britain, thus by Comperative Constitutional Law Convensions, if the long form name was designated the United Kingdom of Great Britain (or the bothersome assertion of the Kingdom of Great Britain) then it follows that the Dominion of Canada was designated to the Union of British North America.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


BTW, it is interesting to see that no one has changed their minds one iota, and Wikipedia is still run by the votes of the ignorant mob. All that has changed, from my point-of-view, is that I really no longer care like I once did about the veracity of the content of Wikipedia. I just tell everyone I know that the articles on Wikipedia are inherently un-reliable.


ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

AVD, please review WP:NPA. As you have been advised before, personal attacks are not welcome here. They are unnecessary, and do nothing to advance the debate. You have put forward an argument based on your own conclusions. That other people do not accept your argument does not make them ignorant. Please withdraw that personal attack, and apologize. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 10:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ground Zero, my above statements do not constitute a personal attack.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"... the ignorant mob...." Yes, that is a personal attack. Please withdraw the remark and apologise. You seem determined to demonstrate that you do not belong here. Please respect Wikipedia policies or consider resigning from Wikipedia. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


No, that, does not constitute a personal attack.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though we had been through this argument before, I was willing to continue to discuss this with you. Because you are unwilling to discuss this civilly and within Wikipedia's rules, I'll end the discussion. Ground Zero | t 06:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someday the country will be called the Electorate of Canada. Until then, eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Parallel Arguement: Great Britain and Canada's long form names

The United Kingdom of Great Great (1707-1800), and the Dominion of Canada (founded 1867) have similiar "name-suppressor cabals" on Wikipedia.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Great_Britain


Upon inspection, the astute observer will notice the parallel naming fucntions in the phrase(s),

Act of Union 1707 (Article 1)
"One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain"
British North America Act 1867 (Clause 3)
"One Dominion under the Name Canada"
The Preamble of the BNA Act 1867 explicitly states that the Constitution of Canada is based directly on that of Great Britain, thus by Comperative Constitutional Law Convensions, if the long form name was designated the United Kingdom of Great Britain (or the bothersome assertion of the Kingdom of Great Britain) then it follows that the Dominion of Canada was designated to the Union of British North America.

However, BOTH long forms of United Kingdom of Great Great and the Dominion of Canada are viciously suppressed here at Wikipedia. Alas.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don, the other editors here are sincere and committed to improving Wikipedia, even when we have a different opinion from you. We are not "an ignorant mob". Until you can accept Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks and withdraw that personal attack and apologize for it like a gentleman, your arguments will be ignored. Ground Zero | t 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, you are not the sole judge of manners and etiquette here. I simple hold the position that the long form name(s) of Great Britain (1707-1800), and Canada (founded 1867) are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada, respectively.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Don, you cannot possibly argue that calling other editors "an ignorant mob" is anything but a personal attack. Please withdraw the remark and apologize. Until you do, there is nothing more to discuss. You are heading back to being blocked yet again. Please respect Wikipedia policy to prevent that from happening. Ground Zero | t 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, I am not arguing with you.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cropped 25 cent bill.jpg

Image:Cropped 25 cent bill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cropped 20 dollar bill.png

Image:Cropped 20 dollar bill.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How to fix this?

Text presently in article

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.
  • Still a colony, though self-governing?
  • Was the monarch not still referred to as king/queen of England,..., and all its dominions (not his/her)? --JimWae 21:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Her Imperial Majesty Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Empress of its Colonial Empire, Empress of its Protectorate of India, Queen of its Dominions, Princess of the Principalities of Hanover, Brunswick, Saxe-Coburg, and Gotha, Duchess of the Duchies of Brunswick, Lüneburg, and Saxony, Sovereign of its Orders, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Defender of the Faith, by the Grace of God
    • despite 1 or 2 govenment "heritage" documents, there is much basis to dispute any claim that in 1867 Canada became "a kingdom in its own right" --JimWae 21:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


JimWae wrote,

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.


A self-governing Colony has Responsible Government (called a Province).

A self-Governing Dominion has Responsible Government and independence (called a Dominion).


Errata:

Dominion is correct, not dominion.

King of England is correct, not king of England.

Queen of England is correct, not not queen of England.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You miss my point - the article says dominion indicates status as a "self-governing colony" of the Empire--JimWae 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


The article is wrong.
A self-governing Colony is a Province within the British Empire.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


The article is wrong still --JimWae 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

dominion shouldn't normally be capitalized

The word "dominion" is only capitalized when referring to a specific dominion or at the beginning of a sentence, etc. Here's its entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica for example.[3]

Rule 4.20 in The Canadian style (the official styleguide from the Canadian Dept. of the Secretary of State) states: "A generic term such as city, county, state or province is lower-cased when precedes the proper name or stands alone, unless it is used in a corporate sense." The word dominion is also such a generic term, like the words kingdom, principality, duchy, empire, etc. are.

Jonathan David Makepeace 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Jonathan David Makepiece, the term Dominion is specific to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa. India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and Fiji. It is amazing the lengths to which people try and suppress it. To Hell with historical facts eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don, your opinion is not fact. And since you are prepared to insult other editors and disregard Wikipedia policies, your opinion doesn't count for anything here. Ground Zero | t 15:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

According to some sources...

It is not POV to point out that a particluar claim is one made by some sources. It IS POV to state as bald fact that "Dominion remains the official title of Canada". An on-line quiz is not a legal document, nor is a Canadian Encyclopedia article (btw, written by someone with an agenda that is anti-republican). There is NO legislative nor judical decree that says that dominion ever even WAS an official title, nor is there one that says it still is. This topic is an item of debate here & elsewhere, & to come down on one side or another is to violoate NPOV. Saying that some sources make a claim does not take a position on the claim, saying the claim is fact does --JimWae 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are unsourced and subjective. You challenge the numerous sources -- federal government, Cdn. Encyclopedia, Rayburn, Oxford Companion of Cdn. History (some of which are archived) -- that indicate the propriety, if not the legality, of this term as the country's title, while providing NONE to counter them. You also argue ad hominem: you point out the supposed 'anti-republican agenda' of the author of a totally reliable source, while having us glaze over what can be called your 'anti-monarchist' edits. I am unconcerned with debates elsewhere, but I find curious your edits at this time to content which has been unchanged for months -- which, effectively, harks of consensus -- and calls to question why you did not do so earlier. Produce more evidence to support your claim, and I will consider it. But, if given the choice between a number of verifiable sources and you, one needn't ask which I choose. 142.150.134.50 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You have made this personal. You have made it about me & you. Pointing out a source's self-declared agenda is relevant & is not an ad hominem & a "btw" is not a main argument - you are using Straw man argumentation & have not replied to my main points --JimWae 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No: you have made this personal and are being polemic, using straw man arguments. You have made it about your viewpoint vs. sources which you don't agree with. In fact, the only sources which back the facts at issue -- and there are a number of them -- are the ones in the article which support the current assertion. Self-declared (whatever that means)? The agenda you refer to is yours alone. A number of sources corroborate the current content. Are all of the supporting sources 'monarchist'? Clearly not. And my main point is this: please substantiate your claims and edits with reliable sources -- which you have not yet done -- or don't bother. 142.150.134.50 02:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no legal interpretation existent of the meaning of "d/Dominion" & wikipedia cannot pretend it has the answer - even if some sources claim they do --JimWae 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • my edits had stood for some weeks. Do you mean to insinuate something?
  • please register, rather than using so many different IPs--JimWae 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you have violated WP:3RR --JimWae 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you have, as well. 142.150.134.50 02:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I have not. You have reverted this article 5 or 6 times in 24 hours, using different IPs --JimWae 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • no, one edit was not a revert - how many reverts have you made? --JimWae 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I quote from wp:3rr "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor". Adding something new is not undoing another's edit --JimWae 03:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • also quoted "If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version," even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be."
        • As well, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." This arguably qualifies, since you continue to insinuate content without sourcing it and despite repeated requests. In addition, you and GroundZero are not everyone; this is also relevant given the passage of months -- in which case, 'everyone (else) was fine with it' -- before you opted to change content without backing. Again, source your arguments and content editions, or desist. 142.150.134.50 03:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • As already pointed out, that version had stood for a week or 2 until you appeared & started single-handedly reverting. I am not alone in preferring recognizing this a claim rather than a bald fact --JimWae 03:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I am fully within my 'rights' to revert this unsourced content, as well as to (per policy) ignore all rules. As well, I am not responsible for the 'groupthink' of others. Provide sources to back your claims, if you can. Until you address this, I can't comment further and will continue to edit with this in mind. 142.150.134.50 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • you know you clearly have violated wp:3rr (several times over) & you know the honourable thing to do --JimWae 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The only exception to [[wp:3rr} is clear vandalism. Content disputes are not an excuse. By AGAIN reverting (another user this time)-- after being warned about being over the limit -- you have shown us something about yourself & your intentions here. I am taking a break from this nonsense & will not discuss this any further for a while. --JimWae 04:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Throughout, you have demonstrated your intentions, with your unwillingness and or inability to predicate your tendentious arguments with reliable sources. During your respite, please make an effort to locate sources which substantiate your claims, and provide them for our collective scrutiny upon your return. Otherwise, I won't indulge in nor respond to your nonsense. 142.150.134.50 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not anti-monarchist to point out that a statement is a claim with sources rather than a bald fact --JimWae 02:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not 'anti-monarchist' to merely point it out, but it is (and, therefore, partial) when you copyedit to support this viewpoint (again) without a single, reliable source, particularly this nonsensical edit. How many times must I ask for you to provide sources to support your edits? Until you do this, I can't comment further. 142.150.134.50 02:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No act or regulation that establishes a long form name for Canada

The Canadian Encyclopedia reference is disputed, so the "according to some sources" reference is appropriate. there remains, after two years of debate over this on this page, no legislative or regulatory citation for a long form name of Canada. User:ArmchairDon above has constructed an argument for a long form name that constitutes original research, which violates WP:NOR. (Of course, he has violated lots of other Wikipedia policies, so his contributions here are not in any way useful.) So there is no rationale for having this article state that the "Dominion of Canada" is an official long form name. Ground Zero | t 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My argument is not at all predicated on ArmchairDon's assertions -- do not confuse and conflate the two. I do not maintain that 'D/dominion' is (part of) Canada's long form name, but it remains (part of) Canada's title. A number of reliable sources that anyone can verify indicate the currency and legitimacy of this assertion:
  • Dominion" The Canadian Encyclopedia. Hurtig Publishers: Toronto (Forsey, Eugene A., ed): "Dominion refers primarily to Dominion of Canada (Constitution Act, 1867, preamble and s3) .... and under the Constitution Act, 1982, 'Dominion' remains Canada's official title."
  • Rayburn, Alan (2001). Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names (2nd ed. ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. pp. 13-4. ISBN 0-8020-8293-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help): "Dominion continues to be part of the official title of this country..."
and:
  • Oxford Companion to Canadian History; Gerald Hallowell, ed; (2004), p. 183: -- 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
This debate has been archived (actually, it appears to not be properly archived, which I will do) -- debates wouldn't linger for years if opponents remembered and desisted from continually trying to push their viewpoints on the rest of us.
And before anyone opts to challenge Mr. Forsey's legitimacy, he is acknowledged as one of Canada's foremost constitutional experts ... but note that he is not the only one who asserts this: for instance, Alan Rayburn was the prior head of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names.
Again, NO sources have been provided to counter this assertion, merely continuous polemicism. So, please provide counter-sources when next there is commentary, for our collective scrutiny, or any said changes will be rectified. 142.150.134.56 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hodgetts does not say that the "Dominion of Canada" is an official name of Canada, only that "dominion" remains Canada's title. I do not dispute that Canada is a dominion -- the Constitution says so. The Constitution and other legal documents do not say, however, that the "Dominion of Canada" is an official name. I respect Forsey and Rayburn's contributions in their fields, but why are we relying on their views? Why is there is no official document that supports the contention? This is why I think it is appropriate to say that "some sources state that the Dominion of Canada is an official name of Canada", but it is incorrect for Wikipedia to assert that "the Dominion of Canada is an official name of Canada" until a Constitutional or legal document is cited. Ground Zero | t 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do not dispute that 'dominion' is Canada's title, what is the problem? I am not arguing that it is the country's official long form name per se. All 3 sources (and others) indicate the currency of 'dominion' as Canada's official title (not name) -- so stop confusing the two. Hodgetts indicates that "the Constitution Act, 1982, retains the title and ... a constitutional amendment [is required] to alter it." Actually, in the document Why Canadians Govern Themselves, published by the federal government and written by Forsey (republished posthumously with editions; referenced in article), something similar is said.
My beef is the willful addition of "some sources indicate..." to assuage denial. In almost two years, no other sources have been produced to counter this assertion: the same opposition was promulgated then by the same authors as now, to no avail. If said editors can't or won't produce reliable sources to counter this fact, that's not my problem. The above are authoritative citations from reputable authors/works about the topic, and they all say the same thing: this is all Wikipedia requires. So, on the contrary: why should I or we have to rely on (your/JimWae's) editorial disbelief when numerous authoritative sources from experts indicate exactly the opposite? 142.150.134.55 18:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

AVD

I, ArmchairVexillologistDon, will re-state my position,

The United Kingdom of Great Great (1707-1800), and the Dominion of Canada (founded 1867) have similiar "name-suppressor cabals" on Wikipedia.
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
Upon inspection, the astute observer will notice the parallel naming fucntions in the phrase(s),
Act of Union 1707 (Article 1)
"One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain"
British North America Act 1867 (Clause 3)
"One Dominion under the Name Canada"
The Preamble of the BNA Act 1867 explicitly states that the Constitution of Canada is based directly on that of Great Britain, thus by Comperative Constitutional Law Convensions, if the long form name was designated the United Kingdom of Great Britain (or the bothersome assertion of the Kingdom of Great Britain) then it follows that the Dominion of Canada was designated to the Union of British North America.
However, BOTH long forms of United Kingdom of Great Great and the Dominion of Canada are viciously suppressed here at Wikipedia. Alas.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The logic is clear ... if Canada (post-1867) is the only "name" allowed on Wikipedia, then it follows that Great Britain (1707-1800) is the only "name" allowed on Wikipedia as well. BOTH articles should be made EQUALLY STUPID. ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restating your original research. You have constructed an interesting argument based on parallelism that does not belong in Wikipedia. You are free to post your original research in other fora, but not this one. In Wikipedia, you must follow Wikipedia policies, including no original research and no personal attacks. You have demonstrated time and time again that you have only contempt for Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia contributors. I invite you to spend your energies on other projects. Ground Zero | t 18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research? You seem to bring out this when someone suggests something that you disagree with. How can the Great Britain (1707-1800) article stand as it is, whilst the Canada (post-1867) article is held to a DIFFERENT STANDARD? BOTH articles should be made EQUALLY STUPID. ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

AVD: please do not regurgitate and confuse your argument with mine. 142.150.134.55 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello 142.150.134.55. That is not my intent. Frankly, this place is run simply on votes. Truth here at Wikipedia does not count ... only votes . Alas. ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don’t have a side in this argument. I’ve never really thought about how “official” the “dominion” inclusion is and I honestly don’t really care that much. I do, however, think that AVD’s reasoning is OR. I also doubt the preamble reasoning anyway. As I understand it, there is not really agreement about what the alike constitutions bit means in the rist place. Clearly it did not mean exactly alike because the Canadian constitution was, from the outset, a significantly written one and thus rather unlike the British one. And of course 1982 is said to have shattered whatever remained of that. In any event, even if “true” it can not rely on AVD’s clear reasoning alone but requires proper source. --JGGardiner 01:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello JGGardiner, thank you for your kind and thoughtful response, I appreciate it alot.

I respect your opinion that my comparasion of the Treaty of Union 1707 for Great Britain to that of the British North America Act 1867 for Canada, you view as Original Research.

Question: Why is assigning Canada as the offical name of the country not Original Research? ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I never said that it wasn’t. I only know that something is OR if I can see it being created. Otherwise it may simply be uncited or unattributed. Your reasoning seemed like OR to me but the assertion on its own may be merely uncited. OR isn’t right or wrong per se, it just isn’t sufficiently demonstrated for inclusion. As for Canada (alone), the only place where I see that is in the opening. I hadn’t read that to mean that the whole name is definitively Canada. It should probably have a footnote saying that is the short name and the long version is disputed (see below). I don’t really know enough about the subject to say that a claim that the whole name is only “Canada” could be made. Perhaps it needs to be demonstrated that is the common view for such a sweeping claim to be made. --JGGardiner 09:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello JGGardiner, your suggestion ...
"It should probably have a footnote saying that is the short name and the long version is disputed (see below)."
in my opinion is an ideal compromise. For the traditionalists like me-self, the long-form name of Canada is stated as being disputed, and for the slower, less-thinking "nouveaux-cerveaux peuple" they can be passified with seeing only Canada, and not the "evil" Dominion of Canada (which makes them collectively soil their underwear).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The BNA Act sez:

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)
4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)

You see -- statutory declaration of the name of the country being "Canada", and not anything else. So Don, please take your personal attacks and original research elsewhere. Ground Zero | t 11:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ground Zero, the word name is inexact.
Does name mean long-form name , or does it mean short-form name ?
Points-in-fact ...
A single word i.e., Canada, is by definition a short-form name .
A short-form name is by definition is NOT a long-form name .
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the name. The only name that is established by statute. There is no other. Please respect wikipedia policies on no personal attacks and no original research. Ground Zero | t 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ground Zero, your lack of understanding of the Law, Constitutional Law, and British Commonwealth Constitutional Law is very evident. I repeat again the word name, in legal terminology is not specific enough. You are perverting the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the Dominion of Canada (i.e., the British North America Act(s) 1867 to 1975).
perverting
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=perverting
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you have demonstrated that you are incapable of participating civilly and productively in a discussion here. Ground Zero | t 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems no dispute that Canada is official (at least as the short name). The use of of Dominion to form a long name is already covered in the "Use" section of the article. In fact, it may already be weighted too heavily, although I wouldn't know myself. I think a footnote from the opening which mentions the dispute and points to the use section would probably be sufficient and maybe more than is needed. Unless and editor has something which could illuminate the need for more. --JGGardiner 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have heard Prime Minister Stephen Harper once use the term "Dominion of Canada" to describe the nation. Though I don't support the bad taste used by ArmchairVexillologistDon on this discussion page, I do agree that this is most likely Canada's official long-form name. However since the 1960s, Canada has increasingly distanced itself from Britain, and this name is rarely if ever used. What I'm about to say is completely a POV by me. I believe that the de facto long form name of Canada today would be the "Canadian Confederation" or "Confederation of Canada". Again I have no proof to back this up, and I am making no attempt to push this on wikipedia. But now back to the debate over "dominion" I do not remember the modern-day (post-1960s) usage of the word in the House of Commons, or in official ceremonies. I may be wrong, if someone can find the usage of Dominion of Canada in ceremonies such as the granting of citizenship to Canadians, or amid the official language used in Canada's parliament, these would be the best sources, they may be original research, but again I have seen no established research available that says that Dominion of Canada has been scrapped as the name, but rather evidence shows that it is not preferred, just like I imagine that average people in Luxembourg would probably not identify their country as the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which is its official name. User:R-41
The reason you have no proof and will never find any regarding Canadian Confederation as a name is because you are rather incorrect regarding that: please consult the article Canadian Confederation, a term which refers to the initial (1867) and subsequent acts of union and is not a de facto long form or other sort of name for the polity known as Canada. In fact, there are numerous sources in the article and elsewhere which say something rather different. Corticopia 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that there are three sources for a country's legal names:

1) It's constating documents. In Canada's case these include not only the various Constitution Acts but also a variety of imperial statutes, regulations, proclamation and--most importantly for this discussion--conventions.

2) Its foreign ministry, which provides the official forms of names under which it enters in treaties and conventions with other nations.

3) The relevant rules of court determining the proper style of cause under which the sovreign authority sues or can be sued.

Under 1), no primary constitutional document has ever used the form of words, "Dominion of Canada." However, I am in no doubt that a constitutional convention emerged, establishing the validity of that name from the late 19th century until the middle of the 20th century. That being said, there is a strong argument that the principal of disuse is applicable to such a convention.

2) The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade maintains that the only official form of name for the country is, "Canada." At any given time, a country's foreign ministry provides an authoritative and definitive statement in International Law of the country's name. Canada enters into all treaties under the name and style of, "Canada."

When the United Kingdom undertook Canada's external relations, the style "Dominion of Canada," was used--for example, the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty[4]. The style appears within the text (but not in the titles) of Canada's early international instruments--for example, the 1925 Supplementary Convention Between Canada and The United States of America to Provide for Extradition on Account of Crimes or Offences Committed Against the Laws for the Suppression of the Traffic in Narcotics, [5]

By 1940, this had disappeared--see Convention between Canada and The United States of America Providing for Emergency Regulation of the Level of Rainy Lake and of the Level of other Boundary Waters in the Rainy Lake Watershed. [6]. By 1945, Canada was entering into conventions not in the person of the King, but as the Government of Canada: Convention between Canada and The United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation (Succession Duties) [7]

Since 1945, Canada has always acceded to international agreements (whether treaties, conventions or otherwise) as,"Canada," in the person of the, "Government of Canada."

3) At present, the Federal Government appears before Canadian courts variously as: "Her Majesty the Queen," in criminal matters; "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada," in property matters; and "Canada (title of appropriate minister) in administrative law matters.

Canada has always appeared before international tribunals (such as the ICJ) as Canada. Given that Canada was beginning the disuse of the "dominion" style by the time most of these organs came into existence, that is hardly surprising.

It is unrealistic to suggest that the style, "Dominion of Canada," has never had standing--but at the same time, it is clear that the contemporary use of the style is obsolete and incorrect. Visagrunt 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your riposte/analysis is somewhat incomplete, and seems to have glazed over various references and sources here and in the article which indicate the opposite regarding the country's title. Corticopia 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I, as you say, "glazed over," matters which are, at root, entirely inconsequential. One may argue for years as to the legal consequence of including the form, "Dominion of Canada" within constating legislation, but the principal of disuse will continue to apply to conventional use absent express statutory language to the contrary. The issue of Canada's long form and short form names in international fora, and before Canadian courts is a matter little touched on in the other sources.198.103.254.251 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Title" vs Official Name / Long form name

Aside from the two sources in the text which refer to "Dominion" as being the country's official "title", are there any examples or definitons of title being used in this context? I have never heard title being used in this context.--Gregalton 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable and reputable sources, both here and at 'dominion', regarding this point: for instance, I strongly encourage editors to read the book Naming Canada: Stories about Canadian Place Names (the author, Alan Rayburn, was the former executive secretary of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names), which contains a chapter about this very topic (How Canada Lost its 'Dominion': pages 17-21). As for the distinct difference, I'm unable to comment at the moment: a Google search may yield some results. Quizimodo 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My point is that the concept of a country having a "title" as distinct from a formal name (which, if I understand correctly, is the distinction you argued above), long form name, and/or official name does not seem to be reflected in non-Canadian sources that I can find (and even in Canadian sources only sporadically). United Nations/diplomatic parlance uses only two concepts (occasionally phrasing each slightly differently): short-form name and long-form (formal) / official name. The Rayburn book (pg 21) on the pages that I have seen (google book source) says only "historic title" and "remains in the title," without defining what title means. This is also different than the claim that it remains the legal title. In addition, I cannot find any sourcesthat refer to the concept of a legal title for other countries. One dictionary (Princeton Wordnet) uses this only in the sense of "styled", as one might say a monarch was "styled" empress, but no legal sense employed (further, the only example used is one where it was in fact part of the (erstwhile) country's official name, 'they styled their nation "The Confederate States"', see [[8]]). So, the difficulty I have with this is that I cannot find any usage of "legal title" for country that is distinct from name, except "styled" (like Republic would also be, even if the country in question were not named republic in its official name).
But I would be happy to see other sources. I am at a loss to see where the concept came from, although will continue to look.--Gregalton 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, I can only comment briefly: the "claim" that 'Dominion' is the country's legal title is corroborated in a number of sources: in addition to its notation in the constitution, this is particularly indicated in How Canadians Govern Themselves (written by Eugene Forsey, Dept. of Canadian Heritage) and the Canadian Encyclopedia entry for 'Dominion' -- this has been discussed here and elsewhere excessively. To "claim" something is to infer that a different claim can be made regarding a particular notion: so, can you produce any reputable evidence that 'Dominion' is not the country's title or in support of your claim? I suspect not.
I will comment regarding other notions later, but in essence I have no challenges with the rest of your content editions to this article. And, consult p. 19 of the Rayburn reference for more context regarding authority/legality of the title/name. Quizimodo 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I have difficulty with this on the basis that only a very limited number of sources - all referring to Canada in this context - use the concept of title at all. Rayburn on page 19 makes the distinction you do, that Dominion is part of the official title, but the legal name is strictly Canada). I unfortunately do not have the book for footnotes, but I am wondering where this concept comes from - it is not used by other countries or internationally as far as I can tell. So, at the moment I am not disputing that this is Canada's title, but trying to figure out what this assertion means in a legal, official or other sense.--Gregalton 08:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
One additional point: I find it odd that the Forsey source claims it is the legal title, but Rayburn that it is the official title. Curious.--Gregalton 08:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Christ-on-a-Stick! Here we go again! Argh.

Style: means taken as a collection of individual words (separate pieces).

e.g. United States of America its style is "United" , "States" , "of" , "America" (i.e., the "pieces" are the "collection of individual words", each word is one piece).


Title: means taken as a unit (one inseparable piece).

e.g. United States of America its title is "United States of America" (i.e., there is only one piece, the whole thing is one piece).


Style and Title: means the long-form name of the entity.

e.g. The Style and Title of America is the United States of America (i.e., the country's long-form name).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide references. The ones I've put state quite clearly that there is no long form name, or that the long form name is simply Canada. Rayburn agrees that the name is Canada.--Gregalton 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this something similar to the difference between the name and the title of an individual? For example: the woman's name is "Elizabeth" but her title is "Elizabeth the Second, of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." Thus, wouldn't it follow that the country's name is "Canada" and its title is the "Dominion of Canada"? --G2bambino 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello G2bambimo. No (Name does not necessarily mean First Name), and no (Title does not mean Royal Title within Canada).
The Queen's First Name: Elizabeth
The Queen's Royal Title within Canada: "Elizabeth the Second, of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok GregAlton, try this one on for size eh,

For our American bretheren (from your family in the British Commonwealth of Nations) here is an example of Style and Title denoting the long-form name of the State of Maine (whose Rank is a State of the US) within the United States of America

Constitution of the State of Maine

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/

Preamble

We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.

Therefore we have the following,

long-form name: State of Maine (ie., Style and Title means long-form name).

short-form name: Maine


So GregAlton, is the Constitution of the State of Maine a reference that will satisfy you eh?

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is indeed a reference. So your contention is that "style and title" are equivalent to "long-form name"?
In which case, we have sources / citations about the long-form name of Canada which contradict each other.--Gregalton 05:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello GregAlton. No, the term Style and Title is very plain. In fact, I contend nothing, I state that plainly Style and Title mean un-ambigiously long-form name.

Please review the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

Specifically Article I.

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1

Article I.

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Therefore, the long-form name was denoted as the United States of America.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Then all of the official links that I can find (modern) state the the long-form name of Canada is Canada. Period. Several references in the article state that it is Canada's 'title', one while reasserting that it is not the name, the other without clarifying what is meant by title. (They also contradict each other with respect to legal title or official title).--Gregalton 07:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton.

Canada is a short-form name.

A long-form name can not be the same as a short-form name.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that? The UN system indicates many countries with the same long-form name as short-form name (or, if you prefer, no long-form name, or official name same as short-form name).--Gregalton 08:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No GregAlton, you are incorrect.

long-form name: none (i.e., none submitted)

short-form name: blah.


A single word is by definition a short-form name.

Additionally, a long-form name can not be the same as a short-form name.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 08:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to claim that "none" means "none submitted"; do you have any evidence that this is the meaning of "none"? Other sources also show this as official or full name, so that would seem to be false. And repeating the statement that a long-form name cannot be the same as a short-form name is simply repeating an unsupported claim.--Gregalton 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton. I have given you a rational explaination of the entries in the country name database. I have spent a considerable amount of effort and time to explain to you the intricacies of long-form names, and short-form names of countries. I do not appreciate your flippant dismissals and demands for more explainations. I have given you enough to understand this subject.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 10:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not think it is a 'rational explanation' that the official names database of the United Nations, which lists the formal name (in exactly those words) as Canada (and short name as Canada), contains information you believe to be incorrect or incomplete because no long-form name "was submitted." It does not say that, nor do other sources (European Union, OAS, etc). (The U.S. and some others do state "no long form name", which is different than saying "none submitted"). Usage in these sources also corresponds to the usage for other countries for which the short and long form names are identical. You also claim that a long-form name cannot be the same as a short-form name, which does not correspond to the information for other countries.
If you contend (or, if you wish, state) that title corresponds to long form name in this case, that contradicts credible sources. If you do not wish to explain why your understanding contradicts those sources, so be it.--Gregalton 11:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton. First-off ... stop putting words in my mouth, I do not like that.

The UN says that Canada is the long-form name?

Show me.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

UN Site referenced in the article footnotes says "formal name" - which is exactly what I wrote above. These formal names correspond to the "long-form name" used in the U.S. department of state web-site referenced. (So, to be clear, I am explicitly stating that I understand official name, formal name and long-form name mean exactly the same thing. I am not clear about 'title', but you have shown usages that demonstrate that title and formal name correspond in at least some instances).
I did not intend to put words in your mouth. You wrote that you gave a rational explanation of entries in the country name database, only UN database was used, and I therefore thought you were referring to that (and including your previous comment).
Sorry, I would put these links directly in here but have a very bad internet connection right now.--Gregalton 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that I really want to get into what seems like a very lengthy discussion, but this link [9] to the official canadian government website of canadian heritage states that "Dominion of Canada" "remains the country's official title". Another site I found was [10] which, if you look under "Background information" has relevant discussion, and says that "To explain the evolution of the Canadian nation's name, officials from the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., refer readers to a book entitled Constitutional Law of Canada written by Peter W. Hogg". RobHar (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I unfortunately do not have access to Hogg (does anyone here? Reference appears to be made on p. 192, but the link provided by RobHar states unambigously that the BNA "did not actually name the country the Dominion of Canada"). Personally, I don't think the flag challenge-response - essentially, a children's quiz - can be considered an encyclopedic source. The other one that is quite frequently referred to is Forsey's "How Canadians govern themselves", which similarly says Dominion of Canada remains the 'legal title' (which, although published by Parliament in its most recent edition, bears the disclaimer that "The ideas and opinions expressed in this document belong to the author or his authorized successors, and do not necessarily reflect those of Parliament.") This [Forsey memorial lecture] (note not by Forsey, but Robert Martin, I am not claiming it's Forsey) states "The word is found, appropriately enough, in the original British North America Act. The Preamble speaks of "One Dominion under the Crown", while section 3 provides for the creation of "One Dominion under the Name of Canada". Strictly speaking, the official name of the new country was, simply, "Canada", but usage sanctioned "Dominion of Canada"."
At any rate the "official title" or "legal title" term appears to be a) not well substantiated in meaning as a concept different from that of formal name (I emphasize, that I can find), or b) to mean the same as "formal name" (and other synonyms). To me, the balance of unambiguous authoritative sources seems to be in favour of the name being only "Canada",--Gregalton (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is borne out by the fact that Canada enters into treaties and international agreements as "Canada" and is referred to as such even when a long-form name (e.g. "The Federal Republic of Germany", "The Peoples Republic of China") is used by the other party. - EronTalk 13:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Only partly related, I liked the phrase in the Forsey lecture: "the phrase "Dominion status" was a constitutional terms of art used to signify an independent, self-governing Commonwealth state".--Gregalton (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a side in this debate but I do have that book by Hogg. Section 5.1(c.), pp110-111 is the relevant portion. He's very clear that the name is only Canada in the BNA Act;
"s.3 of the B.N.A. Act, although it used the word Dominon, did not actually name the coutnry "the Dominion of Canada" but simply "Canada."
But he does seem to suggest that other usage was also official. Earlier in the section he says "(a)fter 1867, the coutnry was usually described officially as "the Dominion of Canada."
And this part references both points of view:
"In the 1930s, the federal government decided to switch the official name of the country from the Dominon of Canada to Canada."
He doesn't mention "title" per se. He says that "dominion" was used as a descriptive (above) and also as a "term... to denote the self-governing countries of the British Empire". Although that he says was outside of Canada and in the 1900s and obviously not official.
Hogg, who is widely considered Canada's leading expert on Constitutional law, seems to me to suggest that the name of the country is part of the executive prerogative rather than what is in the written part of the Constitution alone. Either way, he believes both the portion in the BNA Act and the executive left the country simply named "Canada". --JGGardiner (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated.--Gregalton (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Hogg is only expressing an opinion. He is parroting the opinion of Wheare. Both opinions of Hogg and Wheare are un-supported by external references. No referenced materials back them up ... nothing.

Consider the Act of Union 1707 (specifically Article I)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707

Article I

That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.

and compare this to the British North America Act 1867 (specifically Clause 3) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_Act%2C_1867

Clause 3

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.


Therefore by the tenets of Comparative Constitutional Law we have,

One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain (1707-1800)

One Dominion under the Name of Canada (post-1867)

If one aserts that only the short-form name of Canada is valid,

then only the short-form name of Great Britain is valid and NO OTHER designations can be used ... RIGHT?

In other words, Name(s) like Kingdom of Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain are in-valid ... RIGHT?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Have a reference?--Gregalton (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton. A reference for my reasoning, or a Comparative Constituional Law book?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe he is asking for a reference for your reasoning, i.e. "that is an interesting reasoning, do you know of anyone who has ever had it before you?". Because if this is your reasoning, and not one you found somewhere, then I believe that is exactly the definition of original research. RobHar (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello RobHar. So everything that is un-referenced is original research?

If so does every sentence need a reference citation?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi AVD, no not every unreferenced statement is original research. For example, if I wrote the sentence "Canada is a country" and didn't give a reference, it would not be original research. Furthermore, if I claimed it was original research (perhaps to boast my intellectual ability), I would be lying.
And no, not every sentence needs a reference. However, if people question your statement, then a reference should be made available. So really only contentious sentences need references. And if you disagree with this statement, here's my reference Wikipedia:Verifiability whose "page in a nutshell" reads "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." So you can be angry at the people that make you reference something, but you need to reference it.
Your above reasoning begins with sourced documents (the respective acts of parliament) which is fine, but then you use the "tenets of comparative constitutional law" to deduce something from the sourced documents. And if people disagree with what you say, you have to show that it has been said by professionals in the field. Wikipedia is not a place for things you've figured out are true, even if they are true (reference: the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability reads "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.") Cheers. RobHar (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello RobHar. I shall be plain. People whip out original research at their convenience when they want to discredit or supress something they find "inconvenient" to their "pet-theories. Frankly, I have given you my analysis, and whether you believe it or not ... I could really careless.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello AVD. I don't believe I have mentioned whether I agree or disagree with your analysis. And of course all your reply has accomplished is a change of subject. The bulk of my previous reply was about how the validity of your analysis is not the issue, but rather the verifiability. Do you wish to discuss the verifiability of your reasoning?
(And in case your wondering, now that I've thought about it, your reasoning simply proves that if the name of canada is just "Canada", then that's unconstitutional or illegal or something of the sort. It does not show that it's false. Interesting thing that you can read about here United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Constitutional_concerns, apparently the line of succession of the presidency of the USA seems to (maybe at least) be unconstitutional, however that doesn't mean it's not what it is.) Anyway, the point is, is your statement that the name of Canada is "Dominion of Canada" verifiable? Do you have sources? Wikipedia could not care less whether it's true. RobHar (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, with all due respect, Hogg's opinion carries more weight than yours. Or mine of course.
I'm not sure that I follow all of your reasoning. By Hogg's reasoning, as I understand it, those names are valid because of their sanction by the executive. He says, as I noted, that Canada was "officially named" "the Dominion of Canada". Until that was changed by the government. In a similar fashion the current UK name was made by an act of Parliament, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. Or that was my understanding.
I think that you are saying that if a founding constitutional document says "an X named Y" it becomes "the X of Y". Wouldn't that mean that the US was, from 1781, officially the Confederacy of the United States of America? You used that example above ("The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America.'"). I almost asked then but, like I said, I don't have an opinion in this debate. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
One might consider the official "Commonwealth of Nations" website which here [11] refers to "dominion" as a status, so the fact that canada was created as a dominion has nothing to do with its name. This can also be seen with the fact that (as can be read on the same link) Australia "achieved dominion status when it united as the Commonwealth of Australia", i.e. though a dominion, "dominion" has never been a part of Australia's name. So unless one can find good references that say that Canada is called the "Dominion of Canada" it seems like one should agree that apparently it's not called that. I was under the impression Canada was indeed currently called the "Dominion of Canada" but evidence seems to point the other way. For example, doing a google site search for "Dominion of Canada" on the CIA factbook, UN.org and the Commonwealth of Nations websites all turn up zero results. None. It seems like proponents of the "Dominion" side have given a lot of good theoretical evidence supporting the fact that the name of Canada is "Dominion of Canada", however there appears to be no empirical evidence of this. There does seem to be empirical evidence that the country was created as the "dominion of canada" (see this official plaque [12]).
Anyways, one could, in the article, say that although it may seem from legal documents that the name of canada is "dominion of canada" all evidence points towards it being simply "Canada" and then cite the Cia factbook, and un.org, say. RobHar (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello RobHar. Please READ the discussion BEFORE you make flippant comments. My "reasoning" does not support the assertion that only the short-form name of Canada is valid for the country. I firmly have argued that the long-form name of the Dominion of Canada is valid for the country.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you should stop making rude, imperious comments like the above. RobHar's comments do not seem flippant at all.
Stick to the facts and provide references. Various other editors have explained issues like internal WP policies on verification again and again. Repeating your points in bright blue fonts - despite being asked to stop this inconsiderate means of formatting - does not meet that standard, nor qualify as "firmly argued" reasoning.--Gregalton (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again AVD, you're just changing the subject. Are your statements verifiable? Indeed I have not read the hundreds of paragraphs involved in this discussion, but it does not take that much to see what is going on. Now you made an argument above to which Gregalton replied "Interesting, do you have a reference?". Now perhaps in me not reading the entire discussion, i have missed several other times where you have answered this question by giving a reliable source in which case I invite you to reply to this post with "Well if you'd read the rest of the discussion, you would've seen that I've answered this x times, and here's the reference <insert reference here>!". If on the other hand after all this time you still do not have a reference for your reasoning, then find one. I read above that in july you stated this same reasoning and when asked to give references, your reaction was similar to the current one, avoid the question and insult. Yes, I am ignorant in this subject, so saying I'm part of an ignorant mob won't insult me. But if you are not part of some other ignorant mob, then you will easily be able to find a reliable reference that gives your reasoning and concludes that "Dominion of Canada" is currently the long-form name of Canada. I therefore challenge you to answer with a reference. Just humour me. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello RobHar. I am not changing the subject. I am however frustrated with you. Very frustrated.

References to the long-form name the Dominion of Canada

(1). British North America Acts (1871-1947, the Dominion of Canada is explicitly written in these amendments to the 1867 original).

(2). Proclamation of the Ensigns Amorial of the Dominion of Canada, November 19, 1921

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#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.

(3). The Statute of Westminster 1931 (it explicitly cites the Dominion of Canada several times as the long-form name of the country).

There RobHar ... references enough for you eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone (at least I am not) is disagreeing with you that the name of Canada used to be "Dominion of Canada" (before say the 1960s), so the fact that you list references from before then is not necessarily useful. In fact, in my previous post I asked specifically for references that said that the name of canada is currently "Dominion of Canada". Now your references say that the name used to be "Dominion of Canada". So if you had a reference that said that this fact has never changed that would be good, unfortunately all you have is your reasoning that it hasn't changed. Now I would be being a complete dick if I was just making you prove it was still the name of Canada just for the hell of it. But that is not what I am doing. I am saying that there's a lot of current data that says that the full name is just "Canada" (see for example the United Nations, the CIA factbook, etc. I also add another reference below). In light of this data, I believe it is necessary to justify the claim that "Dominion of Canada" is currently the full name of Canada.

Here's another reference. And I've used comparison with entries from other countries. Here is a reference supporting "Canada" is the "full name" of Canada. It is from the people at the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) (data available here [13]), the official US government board whose sole job it is to figure out exactly what everything is called. Each entry has a "Name Type" and a "Short Form", a "Generic" part (the "descriptive part of the full name"), and a "Full-Name" (see [14] for these descriptions). There are two entries for Canada, the first one's "name type" is "N" for "BGN Standard", the second one's "name type" is "V" for "Variant or alternate name", and the full entries are as follows: 

*Name Type: BGN standard
*Short form: <empty>
*Generic: <empty>
*Full name: Canada

and 

*Name Type: Variant or alternate name
*Short Form: <empty>
*Generic: <empty>
*Full name: Dominion of Canada

(Above "<empty>" refers to a physically empty space in the database). So it seems like this (official US) database says the full name is "Canada" as opposed to this being simply the short form. And as a variant, one could say "Dominion of Canada", but this is some sort of alternate name. To explore further what the various parts of an entry mean, let's look at two other entries. First Luxembourg, then the perhaps more à propos UK.

Luxembourg has three entries: 

*Name Type: Conventional
*Language: English
*Short form: <empty>
*Generic: <empty>
*Full name: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

also, 

*Name Type: BGN standard
*Language: French
*Short form: Luxembourg
*Generic: Grand-Duché
*Full name: Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

and a variant 

*Name Type: Variant or alternate name
*Short form: <empty>
*Generic: <empty>
*Full name: Luxemburg

So its full name is "Grand-Duché de Luxembourg", its short name is "Luxembourg", the "generic part" (perhaps one might say title) is "Grand-Duché". One could, in English call it "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg". And then there's a different spelling, perhaps some sort of original german spelling as opposed to a gallicized -ourg ending.

And now, the United Kingdom, which has three entries: 

*Name Type: BGN standard
*Short form: United Kingdom
*Generic: <empty>
*Full name: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

also, 

*Name Type: Variant or alternate name
*Short form: <empty>
*Generic: <empty>
*Full name: Great Britain

and 

*Name Type: Variant or alternate name
*Short form: <empty>
*Generic: <empty>
*Full name: Britain

Now my conclusion from this data is that the full name of Canada is "Canada", and the full name of the UK is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". And I don't think it's that the US disagrees with your reasoning, I think its just that they, instead of reasoning, asked the relevant authorities. As I stated above, empirical evidence is stronger than theoretically reasoning.

I'm sorry you are frustrated with me, but it just seems like "Canada" is the full name. If you have a problem with my behaviour on this talk page, I encourage you to report me to some form of administrative committee that deals with such things. RobHar (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello RobHar. A long-form name is NOT an executive privilege (i.e., the Government of the day can not change it on a whim).
The British North America Act 1871 (first ammendment to the 1867 original) cites the long-form name as the Dominion of Canada. This represents the first explicit citation. As per tenets of Comparative Constitutional Law the long-form name was thus explicited adopted in 1871. As per the rules of Order of Precedence (he who proceeds first), a long-form name (Dominion of Canada) is higher in rank (of higher Precedence) than a short-form name (Canada), which is of lower rank (of lower Precedence).
Simply put, the term Dominion of Canada was supressed (but never repealed) by the Liberal Party of Canada governments (starting with the 1950s government of Louis Saint-Laurent ) to appease the French-Canadian separatists.
ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. But, though it seems that you are annoyed at the "Liberal party of canada" for "suppressing" the name, the subsequent governments (which of course included the conservatives) have not changed this action. It's possible that all parties agree on this subject now. From what I've read there was growing unrest amongst all canadians regarding the term "dominion" and the subservience it implied. There are certain things a given government of a country can do and certain things a given government of a country can't do. But it seems like once a government of a country has done something, and subsequent (varied) governments of that country have not undone that action, and international organizations recognise the change without contention, then the change is then accepted as valid. Perhaps one could say that the "legal long-form name" is "Dominion of Canada", but the "de-facto long-form name" is simply "Canada". Would you disagree with this? Your "legal" reasonings support the former, but the "factual" data supports the latter. RobHar (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello RobHar. You have read about "the growing unrest about the term Dominion amoungst all Canadians". I have read about that as well. The question is do you believe such an assertion? I personally do not believe that assertion. I feel that it is has been concocted over time by a variety of Academics who simply did not like the term Dominion as it cemented our link to the Constitutional-Monarchy.

A long-form name and a short-form name can not be the same. The shortest designation is a single word, thus a short-form name is by definition a single word.


long-form name: none (i.e., none submitted to database)

short-form name: Canada


Therefore, we have developed a practise of the usage of the short-form name of Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To me a short-form means an official (or somehow standard) shortening of the full name (now I'm definitely no expert on the subject so my opinion doesn't really matter). For example, someone's name could be "Matthew", but maybe they go by "Matt". Or maybe their name is "Kip" and they also go by "Kip". I definitely don't think that "the short-form and the long-form can't be the same" is an argument to show that "Canada" is not the full name of Canada. And if this is a proper argument, what is the full name of Ukraine, or Barbados? If you rather, I could have suggested:
*legal long-form name: Dominion of Canada
*legal short-form name: Canada
*de facto long-form name: Canada
*de facto short-form name: none

or 

*legal long-form name: Dominion of Canada
*legal short-form name: Canada
*de facto long-form name: none
*de facto short-form name: Canada


as I'm not really attempting to distinguish between long form name vs short form name, but rather just the actual (what i would call) full name. The evidence seems to say the de facto full name of Canada is just "Canada".
As for short-form name being by definition one word, then what is the short-form name of the UK, the USA, or the UAE?
At this point (and in my previous post), I'm trying to ask whether you agree in principle with the statement 'The "legal full name" of Canada is "Dominion of Canada", but the "de facto full name" of Canada is just "Canada". I am not trying to see whether there are certain details that we may disagree on, but just this bigger question. Do you agree or disagree with it? RobHar (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello RobHar.

long-form name: Dominion of Canada (supressed by the Government since 1950s)

short-form name: Canada

Only a long-form name is an offical name. The short-form name is un-offically derived from the offical long-form name. So ... no ... I do not agree that Canada is an offical name. I say again, we have developed a practise of the usage of the (un-offical) short-form name of Canada.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You have made several claims and arguments here that need references, and even the references are often not unambiguous:
  1. Government is suppressing the legal full name: this is an exceptional claim bordering on paranoia. Please stop or United Nations black helicopters will be forced to raze Prescott, Ontario to the ground.
  2. A legal long form name must be different than short form or unofficial name. Almost any reference to Georgia, Ukraine, Mongolia, Montenegro, Grenada, or even Ireland would appear to contradict this. (As a side note, the situation with respect to Ireland and the term Republic of Ireland is instructive: Ireland is named Ireland, it is formed as a Republic, and use of the term Republic of Ireland is acceptable and by no means incorrect, but it does not mean that 'Republic of Ireland' is Ireland's official, legal, full, or long-form name.)
  3. You say that a legal change of name would require a legal act. Please support with references. This is by no means unambiguously true under basic tenets of Common Law, whereby consistent use of a name may be sufficient to change that name legally (but by no means in all circumstances). (Note I am not arguing that this is proof of anything, but that there are other legal viewpoints that would contradict your point - without a reference that they apply in this context, they are both just ideas).
  4. You have cited a number of primary texts, including the Constitution Act, 1871. I have just checked that source, and some of the others. You are correct, they do use the full term "Dominion of Canada." They do not, however, state anywhere that I can find that this constitutes the name, full, legal, short, or otherwise. They simply use it. The BNA (1867) states simply "One Dominion under the Name of Canada." That seems rather unambiguous as to the "name". Again, this is not proof that Canada is the full legal name, but it is to the point. Could you please provide the specific text of your many sources that says the name is Canada (as opposed to just using the term)? Again, I could argue the opposite point, that by comparables, saying a) Canada is and was a dominion, and b) referring to Dominion of Canada is therefore not an incorrect form, and c) does not necessarily mean that the official name is Dominion of Canada, anymore than Repubic of Ukraine (technically accurate) is the official name of that country, which just happens to be a Republic named Ukraine. Ultimately, this is the same issue as above: interesting ideas lacking references.
  5. Given all of the above, an equally valid argument to your point above that "we have developed a practice of usage of the un-official short-form name" would be that (prior to about 1940) "we had developed a practice of usage of the phrase Dominion of Canada" but that this usage never constituted an official name.
These points (and some of the sources) are ambiguous in meaning, and without references don't mean much of anything. We have provided (current) references from official sources that indicate that the official name is Canada, period. Without specific sources that say something else, there's not much more to say on that.
There are two decent sources that refer to "title" as (seemingly) distinct from name, which do not fully coincide; neither are official sources, but they should not be dismissed. I've asked for clarification, since this usage of title is (to me) unusual and the contradiction between the two worrisome. AVD has provided info supporting the interpretation that title and long-form name are the same; if this is true, one would have to conclude that Forsey and Rayburn contradict other sources.
I do not see other sources providing a clear use of title as distinct from name. 'Title' as used by Forsey and Rayburn could be interpreted as the legal form, descriptive noun for the institution, style in the sense of "styled a Republic", etc. None of these constitute name (anymore than Baron von Munchausen's name would include Baron), but neither does this imply that using an accurate, descriptive term/style is incorrect, depending on the preferences, traditions and usage of the circumstances or the subject.--Gregalton (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. And on this note I will leave this discussion, as I'm convinced it won't go anywhere (I've brought some facts to the table, I've made some arguments, I've said what I wanted to say). I can only hope that AVD is wrong because I'd hate to think that the Government of Canada is screwing over the abstract notion of the Nation of Canada by suppressing its true name. I mean, come on, it's an abstract notion, it can't defend itself. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I, for one, thank you for your reasoned input.--Gregalton (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Good article. Despite all recent discussion above, I believe the current article does clearly reflect the above points. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello RobHar. I will simply re-state my opinion.

long-form name: Dominion of Canada (supressed by the Government since 1950s)

short-form name: Canada

Only a long-form name is an offical name. The short-form name is un-offically derived from the offical long-form name. So ... no ... I do not agree that Canada is an offical name. I say again, we have developed a practise of the usage of the (un-offical) short-form name of Canada.

I would like to thank you RobHar, for keeping an open mind to the points that I tried to raise to you, during the discussion. I appreciate very much you considering them.

Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Name" is too ambigious to use in a legal document without context.

For a person we have,

First Name: the first given name,

Middle Name: the second, third, etc., given names (not always necessary),

Last Name: the family name (ie., the Surname),

Full Name: the complete name (i.e., First-Middle-Last Name all put together).

For a person, the Full Name (i.e., long-form name) is defined as their legal name.


For a country we have,

long-form name: the complete name of a country (typical offically adopted within a constitution)

short-form name: the partial name of country (typical un-offically derived from the long-form name).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In this typology, you have left out title.--Gregalton 05:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton. Typology? The study of text ... No.

Style and Title mean long-form name of a country (or sub-country entity).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Typology: "A theory or doctrine of types".--Gregalton 07:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


RESPONSES to GregAlton

GregAlton wrote,

You have made several claims and arguments here that need references, and even the references are often not unambiguous:
1. Government is suppressing the legal full name: this is an exceptional claim bordering on paranoia. Please stop or United Nations black helicopters will be forced to raze Prescott, Ontario to the ground.

Response 1:

Greg ... don't be an arse.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


2. A legal long form name must be different than short form or unofficial name. Almost any reference to Georgia, Ukraine, Mongolia, Montenegro, Grenada, or even Ireland would appear to contradict this. (As a side note, the situation with respect to Ireland and the term Republic of Ireland is instructive: Ireland is named Ireland, it is formed as a Republic, and use of the term Republic of Ireland is acceptable and by no means incorrect, but it does not mean that 'Republic of Ireland' is Ireland's official, legal, full, or long-form name.)

Response 2:

(more to come)


3. You say that a legal change of name would require a legal act. Please support with references. This is by no means unambiguously true under basic tenets of Common Law, whereby consistent use of a name may be sufficient to change that name legally (but by no means in all circumstances). (Note I am not arguing that this is proof of anything, but that there are other legal viewpoints that would contradict your point - without a reference that they apply in this context, they are both just ideas).

Response 3:

GregAlton, you are speaking gibberish. Please re-phrase your point.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


4. You have cited a number of primary texts, including the Constitution Act, 1871. I have just checked that source, and some of the others. You are correct, they do use the full term "Dominion of Canada." They do not, however, state anywhere that I can find that this constitutes the name, full, legal, short, or otherwise. They simply use it. The BNA (1867) states simply "One Dominion under the Name of Canada." That seems rather unambiguous as to the "name". Again, this is not proof that Canada is the full legal name, but it is to the point. Could you please provide the specific text of your many sources that says the name is Canada (as opposed to just using the term)? Again, I could argue the opposite point, that by comparables, saying a) Canada is and was a dominion, and b) referring to Dominion of Canada is therefore not an incorrect form, and c) does not necessarily mean that the official name is Dominion of Canada, anymore than Repubic of Ukraine (technically accurate) is the official name of that country, which just happens to be a Republic named Ukraine. Ultimately, this is the same issue as above: interesting ideas lacking references.

Response 4:

(more to come)


5. Given all of the above, an equally valid argument to your point above that "we have developed a practice of usage of the un-official short-form name" would be that (prior to about 1940) "we had developed a practice of usage of the phrase Dominion of Canada" but that this usage never constituted an official name.
These points (and some of the sources) are ambiguous in meaning, and without references don't mean much of anything. We have provided (current) references from official sources that indicate that the official name is Canada, period. Without specific sources that say something else, there's not much more to say on that.
There are two decent sources that refer to "title" as (seemingly) distinct from name, which do not fully coincide; neither are official sources, but they should not be dismissed. I've asked for clarification, since this usage of title is (to me) unusual and the contradiction between the two worrisome. AVD has provided info supporting the interpretation that title and long-form name are the same; if this is true, one would have to conclude that Forsey and Rayburn contradict other sources.
I do not see other sources providing a clear use of title as distinct from name. 'Title' as used by Forsey and Rayburn could be interpreted as the legal form, descriptive noun for the institution, style in the sense of "styled a Republic", etc. None of these constitute name (anymore than Baron von Munchausen's name would include Baron), but neither does this imply that using an accurate, descriptive term/style is incorrect, depending on the preferences, traditions and usage of the circumstances or the subject.--Gregalton (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Response 5:

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/dominion-status-proclammation-1907

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/dominion-status-gazette-notice-1907

(more to come)

1. "Government is suppressing the full name." Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Unless you have some evidence, claiming this is arsinine.
Greg, "claiming this is arsinine" ... in your opinion .
ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


3. You claim a legal name change would require a legal act. Please provide references to claim this is so. You claimed it on the basis of "comparative constitutional law" if I remember correctly. My point above is that there are other legal principles that could apply; either one without a reference is just a claim, with no basis for inclusion.
Greg, the legal text Style and Title , or just Style , or just Title , have the meaning of long-form name. Whether you chose to believe this or not, this is the case.
ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


5. Yes, you have shown title and style to exist for New Zealand as 'Dominion of New Zealand' at 1907. This would seem to support my point that neither title nor style necessarily constitute part of the name. The same international sources for official name do not give a long-form name for New Zealand (although I admit I know nothing about the use or other background of the name of New Zealand, short, long or other form-wise). So if you mean title and style have the same meaning, and are a descriptive term, this is clearly supported, and in this sense Canada may also be accurately termed the Dominion of Canada; but it does not mean that the official name is anything other than Canada.
In this context, your argument that "we have developed a practice of using the short-form name" would appear to correspond less to the facts than "until roughly the 40s, the government had a practice of using the style/title with the name (i.e. Dominion of Canada), but since then has used the only official name - which is both short-form and long-form - (i.e. Canada) without the style/title."--Gregalton (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
GregAlton,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061114173555AAVXvAX
Upon reading the thread cited above, you will see that people disagree on this point.
ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Don, thanks. So to sum up your response, a) there is a conspiracy, with no references or supporting docs; b) Long-form name necessarily includes style and title, no references, no supporting docs, despite numerous examples of countries for which this is emphatically not the case, and with impeccable official sources; c) "People disagree on this point", citing a yahoo messenging boards thread.
You're right, it's hard to argue with "facts" like those.--Gregalton (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello GregAlton,

Here is an example of Style and Title denoting the long-form name of the State of Maine (whose Rank is a State of the US) within the United States of America

Constitution of the State of Maine

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/

Preamble

We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.

Therefore we have the following,

long-form name: State of Maine (ie., Style and Title means long-form name).

short-form name: Maine


So GregAlton, is the Constitution of the State of Maine a reference that will satisfy you eh?

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is indeed a reference. So your contention is that "style and title" are equivalent to "long-form name"?
In which case, we have sources / citations about the long-form name of Canada which contradict each other.--Gregalton 05:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello GregAlton. No, the term Style and Title is very plain. In fact, I contend nothing, I state that plainly Style and Title mean un-ambigiously long-form name.

Please review the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

Specifically Article I.

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1

Article I.

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Therefore, the long-form name was denoted as the United States of America.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your mastery of the rhetorical device known as repetition is impressive. As noted before, Don: in SOME instances style and title do coincide with long form name. In others, they do not. In the case at hand (Canada), the official references strongly support only one form of name ("Canada").--Gregalton (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello GregAlton. The term Style and Title means long-form name. If you willfully frain "intellectual-blindness" to this, it is not of my concern. What is my concern is that if the long-form name of the Dominion of Canada founded on July 1, 1867, as a federal Dominion is going to be supressed, I am going to point out that the short-form name of just Canada is not an offical one.

Canada is NOT an offical designation, it is an un-offical short-form name. Countries can only be known by their offical long-form names.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Hogg, who's intellect is surely beyond question, thinks that "Canada" is the official name. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read the passage from Peter Hogg's book, and he does NOT actually say that. Please read it again, and more carefully this time eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And what of Eugene Forsey, who is also recognised as one of Canada's foremost constitutional experts (now deceased) and would, I imagine, apparently counter this perspective, JGG? :) I only respond due to fulsome claims of intellect made herein.
Anyhow, I'm unsure where this line of discussion is going, perhaps only to promote more ... fulsome claims? I'm unsure what (if any) implication this will have on article content, and all please remember that this isn't a soapbox or chatroom. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
First Don, please stop insulting other editors. It is completely unacceptable.
Second, I disagree with your interpretation of Hogg. He is pretty clear in the line I've already quoted above:

"In the 1930s, the federal government decided to switch the official name of the country from the Dominon of Canada to Canada."

As for Forsey, I agree that not all agree with Hogg. I mentioned him because Don was insulting other editors by suggesting that they could only disagree with him by wearing "intellectual blinders". I gave the example of Hogg to show that not everyone agrees with him. I know that not every editor agrees with me. That doesn't make them stupid or dishonest and I have no right to insult them for it. Nor does anyone else.
As I already said, I don't have a side in this little debate. I only inovlved myself at all because I read a request for a source which I happened to own. I am, however, rather fed up with the incivility that I've seen here.
I absolutely agree with the second part of what you said Quizimodo. I was tempted to ask what changes were being proposed here and I'd like to see some if I was more involved in this discussion. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello JGGardiner. You wrote below,
Second, I disagree with your interpretation of Hogg. He is pretty clear in the line I've already quoted above:
"In the 1930s, the federal government decided to switch the official name of the country from the Dominon of Canada to Canada."
In the 1930s? Switch offical (long-form) name?
Hogg does NOT even quote a reference. He is pushing his own un-referenced opinion . Hogg's own opinion does NOT count as historical fact ... thank God!
ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello Quizimodo.

Here is an example of Style and Title denoting the long-form name of the State of Maine (whose Rank is a State of the US) within the United States of America

Constitution of the State of Maine

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/

Preamble

We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.

Therefore we have the following,

long-form name: State of Maine (ie., Style and Title means long-form name).

short-form name: Maine

using the Constitution of the State of Maine as a reference.


Next up, the term Style and Title very plainly means un-ambigiously long-form name.

Please review the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

Specifically Article I.

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article1

Article I.

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Therefore, the long-form name was denoted as the United States of America.


The implication to the article in question (i.e., Canada's Name) is that its long-form name should be referenced as the Dominion of Canada founded on July 1, 1867, as a federal Dominion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is already stated in 'Dominion#Canada' in (what I think is) the 2nd paragraph:
  • Usage of the term Dominion of Canada was sanctioned as the country's formal political name, and some still read the BNA Act passage as specifying this phrase – rather than Canada alone – as the name. The term Dominion of Canada does not appear in the 1867 act nor in the Constitution Act, 1982 but does appear in the Constitution Act, 1871, other contemporaneous texts, and subsequent bills....
I would not object to insinuating this parlance (from the 1st sentence) from there to here, since it deals with the country's name and usage thereof, but it should also be strengthened through sourcing, not just through argumentation. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Collection of huts

References to a "collection of huts" and other such definitions of the word "canada" are spurious. There is but one source for the meaning of the word "canada" as used by the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, namely Jacques Cartier's travel log:

He (or his ghost writer) wrote: "Ilz appellent une ville canada," which roughly translates as "They call a village canada." The only question is whether "ville" meant "village" or "city" in the 16th Century. In any case, collection of huts is pure 21st Century imagination at its best. As for a description of a St. Lawrence Iroquoian village of the Quebec City region, we have nothing to go on. Cartier described Hochelega, near Montreal, but not Stadacona, near Quebec City. Neither has ever been located. Joseph B (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Cartier indicated that the word meant "village" (or mayby "city"...), no other definition is possible (read his "Recit", referenced above). Furthermore, Hurtig's Canadian Encyclopedia and Canadian Government web sites are not exactly what can be called "reliable." Primary sources are always best. Anyway, see discussion above about the Iroquoians. Joseph B (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Quizimodo might try to put at least one sentence defending his/her thesis that "canada" meant "collection of huts" in the language spoken by the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. Cartier's Recit, which is a primary source, states otherwise. The rest is pure speculation. Joseph B (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I and others have already commented, for more than a year, so stop continuing to ram your speculation down our throats. And please note you have just violated the 3RR rule and will be reported. Quizimodo (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would refer you to the article on the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. There exists only one primary source (one, not two, not three, not more) about the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians and their language. Jacques Cartier met them and wrote a book. By the time Champlain and others came back to the region about 75 years later, the Saint-Lawrence Iroquoians had vanished. There were no amerindian settlements along the St. Laurence River. Thus, there exists no other source. The word 'canada' meant "ville" (in French) and village in English (my translation), according to Cartier's Recit. The rest is pure speculation. Of course, Stadacona probabably was a "collection of huts", but since we have no description of it, it is once again speculation. Cartier never bothered to describe it.
The error stems from sloppy history in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which is still the source for some secondary sources such as Hurtig's Canadian Encyclopdia (the wikipedia is not supposed to copy it...). See the article of the Laurentian language for a summary. But please try to differentiate primary and secondary sources. Joseph B (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that your riposte above is pure speculation. You are not an arbiter of what is and is not a reputable, let alone a primary or secondary, source. You alone have been promulgating this theory for more than a year. The article you direct us to was, of course, created and influenced by you, perhaps to further promulgate your original perspective regarding this. Of course, I can be convinced otherwise, but you have not presented any convincing evidence (to me or others), nor have you edited with any modicum of consensus. Please try to equitably integrate your viewpoint with those already in the article instead of removing what you disbelieve -- as such, your 'sloppy', imbalanced editing will be rectified (and will continue to be) at the earliest opportunity. Quizimodo (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Joseph B here and below. I see no more reliable source than Cartier that the St. Lawrence Iroquoians word for village was "canada". There are little to no other records of contact with the St. Lawrence Iroquoians to refute him. I think the "collection of huts" story is simply the sort of fanciful, colourful story writing that historians used to do in previous centuries. If a serious reliable source for collection of huts is available, I'd like to see it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Concurrence regarding an unproved hypothesis and conjecture means little here. This is a common English rendition of a St. Lawrence Iroquoian word. The burden of evidence is on the proponent of this information, not on me and others to discount it. If serious reliable sources exist to support this line of argument, I'd like to see them -- we're not there by any means. it. Quizimodo (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Citation given: the only writer who was there -> Cartier. The burden of evidence is on the words inserted. and I find collection :of huts sources seriously lacking. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, this is insufficient: please see the commentary on the offending editor's talk page months ago by Lexicon. Sufficient citations have been provided to support that content. Quizimodo (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he said we can't rely on Cartier's spelling of canada, which I agree with. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet, you and Joseph B are relying on it. Flaw revealed and illogic exposed. Quizimodo (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. Spelling it kanata is fine. Calling it a collection of huts is not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but please note that the references support both kanata and "collection of huts" -- the key difference between the prior version and Joseph B's is that the former is equitable regarding the spelling and can still stand for improvement, while the latter is limited in perspective and is unacceptable. Suppressing a cited definition, no matter how one or few may reckon it, is against policy and is as distasteful as the insinuated 'racism' of inclusion. Quizimodo (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Which citations exactly and what are their sources? The ones I saw were not reliable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Refer to the prior version, the sources for which are no more or less reliable than what is being promulgated by Joseph B. Quizimodo (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to the Museum of Civilisation webpage and the Bonikowsky feature in TCE, then those are the not-reliable source I refer to. Neither are serious, neither have sources, and neither has ever been scholarly cited. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Really ... Do you also challenge Naming Canada: Stories About Canadian Place Names, written by Alan Rayburn (former head of the Canadian Permanent Committee of Geographic Names), wherein kanata was reckoned by Cartier to mean 'town', later interpreted to mean a cluster of dwellings, and another contemporary meaning (by Thévet) being 'land'? Joseph B has been perniciously removing these references as well. Or this reference, in which Charlevois indicated Kan-a-ta as meaning a "collection of huts"? Also see here. Please ... Quizimodo (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Rayburn says what Joseph and I are saying: Cartier said the word meant town. I believe your other references say that Charlevoix said (in 1744) that the Huron word kanata meant collection of huts. Get the direct Charlevoix reference and we can include his theory. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Rayburn says the word meant a number of things. I think this reference with translation should suffice (indicating Kannata (2 n's)), but a number of other reputable references corroborate Charlevoix' reckoning (which on their own justify inclusion), so I find your resistance herein to including that meaning rather perplexing and misguided.
Indeed, Rayburn says that the origin and meaning of "Canada" would appear to be beyond dispute as meaning town or village. Do you agree with your source that the word came from the Hurons? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The Hawkins reference quotes Charlevoix as saying Some derive this name from the Iroquois word Kannata pronounced Cannada signifying a collection of huts. I've included the wording "collection of huts" from there, though I don't personally think it's necessary. It still seems like belittling what First Nations villages were. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not a question of me agreeing or disagreeing with the source: it is what it is (as are other references which corroborate this), and so it shall be written and restored. Quizimodo (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And, yes, it is necessary to include this 'contentious' text. Belittling? No comment: this is not a pulpit for the meek. As well, I may yet consolidate Charlevoix' notion with those in the paragraph prior, since this is a common reckoning and also deals with Iroquoian underpinnings of the word. Some believe this, others believe that -- of course, we (are supposed to) integrate those disparate notions and operate under different auspices here. End note. Quizimodo (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I must point out that your intervention herein, given your confused attitude on the 'Canada' page regarding 'dominion', gives me further pause about your motives. Quizimodo (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you needn't point out. Stick to the facts and don't fall to argumentum ad hominem. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is necessary: your interventions have had more the effect of mitigating any assumptions of good faith there may be. So, please argue rationally and judiciously, or not at all. Quizimodo (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The word 'canada' meant village in the 16th century

The Wikipedia articles on the St. Lawrence Iroquoians have not been seriously challenged or radically changed for well over a year, and several contributors have improved them. Here are the main sources on this subject (only the first is available on the net, however):

  • Jacques Cartier. (1545). Relation originale de Jacques Cartier. Paris: Tross (1863 edition). (Vocabulary list on pages 46 to 48)
  • Floyd G. Lounsbury. (1978). "Iroquoian Languages," Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15. Pages 334-343.
  • Marianne Mithun. (1979). "Iroquoian," in Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, The Languages of Native America. Austin: University of Texas Press. Pages 140-141. ("Laurentian")
  • Roland Tremblay. (2006). The Saint Lawrence Iroquoians. Corn People. Montréal, Qc, Les Éditions de l'Homme
  • Bruce G. Trigger. (1976). The Children of Aataentsic: a History of the Huron People to 1660. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press. Pages 214-228. ("The Disappearance of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians")

The first (primary) source dates from 1545. Since the St. Lawrence Iroquoians vanished by the time the next European showed up, the distinction between primary and secondary sources takes on considerable importance with regards to the meaning of the word 'canada' in Laurentian, the language spoken at Stadacona in the 16th century. Our entire understanding of this language boils downs to two lists of vocabulary in the travels logs of Jacques Cartier. The foremost expert on Iroquoian languages, Marianne Mithun, has stated this emphatically in her published works on the language of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. Thus, any statement that the word 'canada' means "collection of huts" contradicts the foremost authority on Iroquoian languages, who quotes the only known primary source, and could even be considered to be a racist insult. If the Stadaconans did live like their cousins in Hochelaga, they would have lived in longhouses which are a far cry from "huts". Joseph B (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The key here is in your opinion. Please provide reputable sources which corroborate your viewpoint here: as far as I can tell, none have been provided -- none of the above explicitly discount the common rendition (kanata), nor do they indicate that the commonly-held etymologies of these words (the references, whatever their stripe, for which you continuously delete) are false. You're going to have to do a lot better than that. And, frankly, if whatever is considered to be a 'racist insult' (please cite), that is something you must contend with in another venue and is not our problem. Until then, I defer to my prior comments. Quizimodo (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I nearly wrote the same thing above along with fanciful colourful story-telling, calling a First Nations village a "collection of huts" has a serious taste of prejudice about it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, to err is human: prove the validity of this viewpoint through reputable sourcing -- not yet done. Quizimodo (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dominion status section restored

Referenced facts with complete quotes from scholarly sources are provided. Please do not Blank these again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 07:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory statement about Dominion Title removed

  • The sourced quotes clearly show that the word Dominion was to "uphold the monarchist principle", not to recognize responsible government or "self-governing status". These were recognized in the 1840's. To include it, you need a quote that specifically dates the definition back to 1867. --Soulscanner (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merriam-Webser defintion given was moved to definition for "dominion status". It defines a dominion as a member of the Commonwealth of nations. Clearly, this definition did not apply in 1867. Dominion status clearly documented to have been exercised in 1919 for the first time by constitutional scholar Frank Scott. The Commonwealth did not exist as such until the 1930's or 40's, long after confederation. --Soulscanner (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reference to 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica clearly shows that the word 'dominion' was used to apply to all African Imperial possessions of Britain well until 1911. Hence the Websters definition did not apply then, not did Dominion status. Do not delete this reference again. It is a pertinent reference from a scholarly source. You cannot delete good references just because they contradict your personal opinions. --Soulscanner (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Name_of_Canada/Archive_3&oldid=1249851739"