Jump to content

Talk:Royal 22nd Regiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nickname

[edit]

The popular nickname of the Van Doos in the Canadian army is, or was, "the Come-twicers", but I hesitate to add this piece of trivia to the article. Axel 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Add it if you can find a decent cite. The only nickname I have heard is "Van Doos", altho' Regiments.org also lists les hosties de queues plate, which I am informed means either (roughly) "flat-tailed bastards" or "flat dicks."[1] --SigPig |SEND - OVER 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective preceding the noun?

[edit]

I always thought that the adjective royale followed the noun, as in Gendarmerie royale du Canada. So wouldn't the Regt normally be "Le 22e Régiment Royal"? (I know it isn't, and I am not proposing it be so; I am just curious as to this bit of French grammar). Thanks. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutly right, the name of the regiment should be: « Le 22e Régiment Royal d'Infanterie du Canada » ; however, it is in the tradition to use « Royal 22e etc», although I don't know why. Boris Crépeau 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives generally follow nouns in French but there are many exceptions. In the context of regiment names, when France had royalty, the word "Royal" was used almost as if it was itself a noun: thus among regiments of the Ancien régime we find Royal-Auvergne, Royal-Comtois, Royal-La-Marine, etc. I think the form "Royal 22e" was influenced by those old names, perhaps not with impeccable logic. But if one insists on "Royal" being an adjective, there is the word order in exclamations (Triste soirée!) or in expressions of admiration (Heureuse affaire!); maybe regimental names are considered exclamations since regiments always get orders barked at them. Axel 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Royal 22e Régiment, regardless of logic, is a proper name. It is neither a translation nor a nickname nor a tradition. It was submitted by the Department of National Defence in 1928 and approved by the Head of State, the King. It is now the only name used in ANY language, including English, by the regiment, by the Canadian Armed Forces and by the Canadian Government. This said, I share the view that the examples of the French period were motivation in structuring the name of the unit. — VanDoo22 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Van Doos meaning

[edit]

Van Doos can also refer to a distant cousin, as in a cousin who is so far removed to be your second cousin. This should either be mentioned as part of disambiguation or as part of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.19.177.73 (talk) 15:58, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Bearskins

[edit]

Is there any special dispensation for them to wear bearskins? Or is their use of the bearskin cap independent of the guards' use? 118.90.72.183 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters

[edit]

For civilian uses, particularly in the corporate world, French term for headquarters is indeed le siège social. However, for military or police organization the correct term is le quartier général. Please see http://www.r22er.com. So I changed that description.70.55.142.35 (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oka Staredown image - probably should be replaced

[edit]

I did not add a non-free fair use rationale for this page for the Oka stare down image, as while filling out that rationale afaiac it failed one important criteria - I think it is possible that we could find free alternatives that illustrate the Royal 22e Reg. just as well or even better. I'll let someone else find/locate/choose an image to replace it with. Cheers. CraigWyllie (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of "Van Doos"

[edit]

Van Doos is actually a shortening of vingt-deuxième [22e is the french equivalent of 22nd (twenty-second), not 22 (twenty-two)] - with the extra letters tacked on the end, the x is now no longer silent, but is pronounced like an s, and so Van Doos.Rowena Thwaite (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this has been fixed in the page. However, instead of calling it an "anglicized mispronunciation", I think an "anglicized approximation" would be more appropriate. It is, after all, an approximation of the nearest English phonemes to those in French. (141.211.173.77 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Royal 22nd Regiment

[edit]

The article name needs to reflect common english usage on english wikipedia with "Royal 22e Régiment" linking to it. Therefore the article needs to be moved to "Royal 22nd Regiment". UrbanNerd (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also much of the article needs to be reworded to use the common english usage. Altho the regiment may be majority french, this is wikipedia english, and if there is a common english usage it should be used per MOS:CA guidelines. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to see better evidence before I'd support a change. Official usage, even in English, is Royal 22e Régiment. However, as UrbanNerd correctly points out, we rely on most common usage in English (assuming such usage is unambiguous and clear-cut); while an official name might help us determine common usage, we do not defer to it. IIRC, the Globe and Mail does refer to it as the Royal 22nd Regiment. But I'd need to see more analysis. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in english its generally called " Royal 22nd Regiment" and has been for a long time in the press and books.Moxy (talk)
The media, including CBC, CTV and National Post amongst others refers to the 22nd regiment by their english name. Heck even Veterans Affairs calls them by their english name. It should be changed to reflect the english usage. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Veterans Affairs example is not convincing, since one actually gets slightly more English-language page results on their website for the French name than the English one. Basically, that department is all over the map. CBC and CTV are also both a bit of an inconsistent mess as well (they both sometimes use "Royal 22e Regiment", without the accent), but for the most part stick to the English name (CBC more than CTV). I got results for both forms on the National Post website, but under 20 hits for both, so I don't trust their search function. We need to do more than just point to random examples on the internet, as none of the ones mentioned show a clear-cut common usage. A Google search of English-language websites resulted in 300,000+ uses of "Royal 22e Régiment/Royal 22e Regiment" and 1,000,000+ uses of "Royal 22nd Regiment" (and I added the word Canada to that latter search, just in case there's another Royal 22nd Regiment in a different country, but it only reduced the hit count a few thousand). To me, at least, that's convincing that the common usage in English is Royal 22nd Regiment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Veterans Affairs is a mess, or CBC & CTV are inconsistent are irrelevant. If there is a commonly english usage we use it and note the french usage. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who relied on them as evidence. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used as examples of the english usage. I could care less if they use both. I'm not arguing that both are used. I'm simply saying that there is a common english usage. As the over 1,000,000 google hits back up. It's a pretty clear cut case. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any common usage that is relevant, but rather, to use of the often quoted phrase, the usage that is "clearly the most commonly used in the English-language" (as per MOS:CA, WP:EN and WP:UCN). As per MOS:CA, if usage is ambiguous, stick with the official name; if the media is using both (which isn't actually the case here, if you read my comments), that does not help your case. If the test were actually any example of English-language usage, that would also undermine your argument, as we may as well keep the official name in that case since it is quite evidently also used quite commonly in English. But I'm not arguing with you on the result -- I'm the one that actually pointed out that the English-version of the name has far more hits than the official name, which makes it quite evident as to what the most common usage in English is. Google hits aren't always that reliable, but that's a pretty big spread between the two results. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of those regiments are widely recognized and discussed in the media. The Vandoos are. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So in any-case I think we all (3 of us) agree here that in this article an english title is more then warranted right?Moxy (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In this case there is a clear cut widely used english title. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If these changes were made in good faith, and are not vandalism, there is a requirement for a more thorough discussion. The credibility of Wikipedia is at stake. It is a reference for journalists and writers. If wrong information, such as the name of Canadian Army units, is inserted, it destroys the usefulness of Wikipedia. It is also an insult to the memory of the thousands of dead and wounded Van Doos . In this case the argument in favour of anglicising the official name of the Van Doos is that many journalists have done so in the past. If their mistakes are then used as a basis for Wikipedia, the process becomes a loop of errors that reinforce themselves. The name of the Royal 22e Régiment is not based on practise, it is a decision of the government that created it and maintains it. See www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca .This page from the Directorate of History and Heritage of National Defence and the Canadian Forces makes it very clear what the name of the regiment is. I would ask that you refer to any press release or administrative document of the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Government to see substantiation of this point. If you wish, it might be appropriate to insert something along the lines of the following : The Royal 22e Régiment is sometimes referred to by its English translation, Royal 22nd Regiment, by some journalists ot their editors, but this practise is considered to be an error, inappropriate and insulting by members of the regiment. In comparison, I refer you to the English Wikipedia page for the Surete du Quebec which does NOT use the common English expression of Quebec Provincial Police. VanDoo22 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before you start accusing people of insulting "the memory of the thousands of dead and wounded Van Doos", please carefully read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Such hyperbole is not helpful. It would also be helpful if you read the naming conventions and guidelines referred to above - it would assist you in understanding that the official name is not determinative (nor are opinions as to what members may or may not find insulting). Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing your edit summary for the main article, it would also be helpful if you did not make unfounded vandalism accusations. It does not help your credibility. GoodDay made those changes after a discussion here on the talk page - they were quite obviously not vandalism. If you disagree with those changes, then continue to pursue the issue on the talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." That said, I'm finding a paucity of RS with the English name, compared to the French. You may be right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion above, I'm surprised you think there is a "paucity" of sources, reliable or otherwise. I'm hardly part of the "this is not the French Wikipedia wah wah wah" crowd, but I think MOS:CA, WP:EN and WP:UCN were all pretty clearly met here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that was the wrong word. Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly in favour of the common name guideline and have concerns about how the WP:SPA is pushing this. In fact, you'll see that I had initially rolled back his revert, before having second thoughts. It's just that there are more English RS using the French name than I had expected. I am not supporting VanDoo22 in this; at best, I'm neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This is definitely not black and white. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]The current page should revert to its original title of Royal 22e Regiment. That is the name of the regiment decreed by the King in 1928. It is a government unit. One may recognize its nick names, and even improper titles, within the text, identifying them as errors. One may use such names to direct searchers to the proper title.

However, one may not logically CHANGE the proper name of a unit that has existed under that name since 1928 and whose name is determined by the administrative law of the country.

In arguments above, it is held that Royal 22nd Regiment is the usage that is "clearly the most commonly used in the English-language" (as per MOS:CA, WP:EN and WP:UCN). The justification is based solely on google media searches. A more valid measure would be to find out how the military deals with the name - how the Department of National Defence deals with it - how the government as a whole deals with it. As well, Wikipedia suggests that one should examine how academic experts, as distinct from non-specialized journalists, deal with it. e.g. David Bercuson (a card-carrying Anglo at the U of Calgary) writes about the Canadians in Korea. For approximately 80 years the name has been Royal 22e Régiment, although in a country where Anglophones were most often unilingual, and often resistant to the idea of Canada having a French-language unit, the English translation was often used. For example, CBC documents giving background on the military refer to the correct name. But at times their reporters and those for various other English media will anglicize the name. (At times, certain French reporters also wrongly attempt to translate Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Some even used to write about British Columbia as Colombie canadienne! All of that is wrong in any language.) Surely Wikipedia does not wish to associate itself with such an approach. The regiment has only one name, its official title. All the other nicknames and improper translations can be inserted into the text for information. But the bottom line is that users of Wikipedia need accurate information. This includes giving the correct name (for English usage) of one of Canada's best known units.VanDoo22 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thankful that you are now focused on the applicable namng conventions, rather than on what you think is insulting. As for the article name, it is simply a question of what is the most common usage. The official name is not determinative, nor is usage by David Bercuson (IIRC, Moxy referenced a number of books above that use the English version of the name). If the name is most often anglicized in common English-language usage, whether you feel that is correct or not, then the anglicized name is the one en-Wikipedia uses, in accordance with the applicable naming conventions. I am most certainly open to a discussion of what the most common usage is, and would be happy to support a reversion of the title, but only where it is shown that the most common usage in English is the French, official name. Telling me that people who use the anglicized version are all wrong is not a valid ground for a name change nor is it very convincing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the military unit infobox template calls for "the formal name of the unit" at the top of the infobox. That should be the French name, regardless of the article name or usage throughout the body of the article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

__________

For those close to the issue this is of course blood-boiling question that they have had to deal with for decades. No offense intended. Here is another attempt at putting the question in Wikipedia terms.

There are two important criterion identified by Wikipedia's rules on titles : Reliable Sources and Neutrality

Counting the sources picked up in a wide-reaching google search are far from the reliable ones desired by Wikipedia. The most reliable sources in this case are (1)the various levels of government and public administrations; (2) academics who write about Canadian military matters (Bercuson is only an example - there are hundreds, all on the same page); (3) and lastly, the common name used by the organization itself. The internal correspondence only shows up on the internet in press releases, strategy papers etc. But these must be given very great weight since they reflect the work and terminology of a whole government. In the case of the Royal 22e Régiment, one can detect an unbroken progression in use of the French name from 1928 to the present where it is now an astonishing aberration to find a reference to the 1920s name of Royal 22nd Regiment in these milieux. I am sure that, if such were required, the Prime Minister's office would gladly direct a letter to Wikipedia. or issue a press release, indicating its view on the proposal by Wikipedia editors to disenfranchise the name of the Van Doos.

Neutrality is a key issue. Canada has had to deal with ethnic and cultural antagonism since its inception. The creation of the Royal 22e Régiment was a reaction, demanded by French-Canadians, against the refusal of the existing administrations to recognize the use of their language anywhere in the schools or administration under Federal or Ontario control. In the 1st Canadian Division, the 1,000(+) Franco recruits were dispersed into every unit, where most could not understand their leaders or their mates (see Chubby Powers memoirs - he served in WW1 in the RMR and was deeply offended at how his fellow Quebecers were treated). The R22eR was created as a result and has grown and expanded as a proud French-Canadian unit, cited by the Laurendeau-Dunton report in the 1960s , as an example for the federal civil service. The Van Doos have had to deal with almost a century of struggling to maintain their status as a French-language unit, while never dropping the ball in battle. The change of name by the King, in 1928, from RoyaL 22nd Regiment, in either language, to a French nomenclature, in either language, was a decision by Canada to affirm that in the future the regiment would continue to be recognized as a Francophone unit. Therefore the continued use of the 1920s era Royal 22nd is perceived (correctly) as a far-from-neutral refusal to recognize the Francophone nature of the unit. Journalists who use the term also generally fail to add expressions such as quote the Quebec-based Royal ... or the French-speaking Royal ....unquote. Their approach appears to aside the accomplishments in battle of Quebec's soldiers. Thus a change in the Wikipedia title of the unit, back to the era of the 1920s, would be an ethnic slur against one of Canada's best units and a denial of its Francophone nature ---- not to speak of being factually incorrect. On the other hand, journalists who are ill at ease with a French title (for example the names of Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, Maurice Richard, Royal 22e Régiment), who nevertheless wish to signify the particular nature of the regiment, speak of the Van Doos. Quebec soldiers are more than pleased with that nomenclature that respects their identity (des vingts-deux), is not an ethnic slur and respects the rules of Wikipedia in regard to neutrality. VanDoo22 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "those close to the issue," do you have an affiliation with the Van Doos? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your attempt to reproduce your argument a second time on this Talk page. It is not necessary and as Skeezix points out, it makes more sense to have the discussion in one place. You've made your argument at length, and pasting it repeatedly into this talk page doesn't help. I ask you again what your affiliation is with the Van Doos. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My user name (VanDoo22) makes it clear, right up front, where my background knowledge lies. However, as a long-retired veteran,I have no employment relationship or obligation with the military. Nevertheless, a quick look at the Wikipedia rules on conflict of interest suggests that even someone in the most direct conflict of interest (not my case) has the right, indeed the duty, to intervene when damage is being done, unjustifiably, to the reputation of a person or organization. This is clearly in the interest of Wikipedia, not to speak of the person or organization in question. In the case of the Royal 22e Régiment, the damage is perhaps unintentional. One has to be thoroughly attuned to the history of the French-Canadian military in Canada to understand the damage caused by the change of a historical unit's name back to that of the 1920s era. Other French-speaking units are in a similar position, albeit they are younger than the Van Doos. Look at Wikipedia page "Regimental nicknames of the Canadian Forces", or your page on the "Canadian Forces order of precedence". Note in particular the Regular Force 5e Régiment d'Artillerie Légère du Canada, and 12e Régiment blindé du Canada, along with a great many Reserve units. In English Canada, the light artillery units are "Royal" and are designated "Horse Artillery" - Is Wikipedia going to use those terms or will it make a literal translation into the non-existent "Light Artillery Regiment?" The 12e RBC was very traumatically anglicized into the 12th Armoured Regiment (Three Rivers Regiment), for World War II, including the replacement of virtually all its French-Canadian officers. This was rectified after the war when the former names were re-established. The Wikipedia page gives considerable detail on this. Is Wikipedia going to change it back to the !2th Armoured Regiment (Three Rivers)? By the way, "Three Rivers is also verbotten in Canada.In short, it is my perception that you are starting on a long futile exercise that will unjustifiably damage many Canadian organizations and their members and hurt the reputation of Wikipedia as a credible source of information. Some of the discussion suggests that the effort could be limited just to the Royal 22e Régiment - which could call for considerable explanation as well. Why pick on the Van Doos, and not the others? VanDoo22 (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RESEARCH ON USE OF NAME ROYAL 22nd REGIMENT (Note ammended conclusion)

Hi all As a newby I ask that you excuse my errors of protocol and format. However, because I appear to have jumped on a moving train, I hasten to provide my research in a format that you can use.

I have undertaken a Google search of title usage relating to the Van Doos, such as suggested by several on this site. I confirmed the reported findings. However, I have also attempted to "drill down" through the data to obtain the current linguistic usage of the title Royal 22nd Regiment. I used as criteria the date of publication, the language of publication and finally, in a supplementary search, the reliability of the data (i.e. using government web sites). Here are the results

ANY TIME OVER THE PAST 97 YEARS - ANY LANGUAGE OF PUBLICATION (AS ALREADY REPORTED)
Royal 22nd Regiment 1,730,000
Royal 22e Régiment 172,000
SINCE THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY (YEAR 2000)
Royal 22nd Regiment 51,200 (any language)
49,600 (English pub)
Royal 22e Régiment 92,200 (any language)
41,400 (English pub)
IN THE PAST 5 YEARS (SINCE 2006)
Royal 22nd Regiment 47,800 (any language)
46,300 (English pub)
Royal 22e Régiment 85,900 (any language)
39,300 (English pub)
CURRENT YEAR (SINCE JAN 2011)
Royal 22nd Regiment 21,600 (any language)
20,600 (English pub)
Royal 22e Régiment 45,100 (any language)
21,300 (English pub)
CANADIAN ADMINISTRATIVE USAGE (AS SEEN ON CANADIAN GOVERNEMENT DOMAIN ".gc.ca")
Any time over the past 97 years:::::R22ndR 27,100;::::R22eR 24,400 of which 5,400 in English docs
Since start of 21st century:::::R22ndR 120;::::R22eR 11,600 of which 672 in English documents
In past 5 years::::::R22ndR 90;::::R22eR 10,300 of which 611 in English documents
Current year::::::::R22ndR 36:::::R22eR 538 of which 320 in English documents
Note: totals for English and French documents do not add up to the total for "any language". I suspect that Google has been stymied by the multiplicity of bilingual government documents and has only listed by language those exclusively in one language or the other.
AMMENDED CONCLUSION

NOTE: THE ABOVE DATA MISSED TWO SEGMENTS OF TITLES CAUSED BY THE COMMON ENGLISH LANGUAGE MEDIA PRACTISE OF IGNORING ACCENTS. THUS 329,000 PAGES FOR "Royal 22e Regiment" AND 10,500 PAGES FOR "Royal 22 Regiment" MUST BE ADDED TO THE DATA. The ammended conlusion, below, has been ammended to reflect the new data, not yet shown above.

The initial results of the previous research on this site have been validated in regard to the past 97 years of history of the Royal 22e Régiment except for the additional numbers of titles without accents
However the additional data shown above also seems to confirm that the English-speaking world, as reflected by Google searches, haa tilted to the use of the official French-Canadian title of the Royal 22e Régiment, largely setting aside use of the expression "Royal 22nd Regiment", a move started by the King in 1928. The expression "Royal 22nd Regiment" has virtually disappeared from official use, representing only 10% of references to the regiment in English within the wide field of Canadian government administration in the current year. In regard to ALL sources on the Web, worldwide, the use of approved title of "Royal 22e Régiment" in ENGLISH WEB PAGES was already dominant at the start of the century, surpassing the Anglicised version by about 20%. But, the gap has contimued to grow.
In the current year, in ENGLISH PAGES from all sources on the Web, the use of the term Royal 22e Régiment OUTNUMBERS the anglicized version by 50% , i.e.31,377 to 20,600. And, it is clear that this is the trend for the future. I invite the other members to replicate these figures and to advise me of any errors. I suggest that our editor consider reserving judgement and place in abeyance the finalisation of changes in the web sites, related to anglicizing the title of both the article and the regiment. VanDoo22 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
VanDoo22 left a nice note on my talk page, asking that I hold off looking at all the data and information he provided above, as (s)he wants to review/revise it. I'm happy to do that. Once VanDoo22 has had the chance to revise the points (s)he has made, Shawn has suggested that we put another notice over at WP:CANBOARD/WP:CANTALK so as to expand the scope of this conversation, which is an excellent idea. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes more involved is always a good idea. Moxy (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was directed here by Po' buster/PhilthyBear UrbanNerd to find out why my edit was reverted. I see this discussion, though, is about the article name, not the regiment's official name and its usage in both English and French. Regardless, I trust this source, the regiment's own web page, will quell UN's objections: "The English name 'Royal 22nd Regiment' is often seen, but strictly speaking is incorrect: only the French form is official."[2] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the official name in English is the French spelling. The previous discussion centered on whether the article should be using the official (French) name or the arguably more common English translation. The decision to go with the latter does not in any way mean that we should not reference the official name in the lead and/or infobox. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have no intention of disputing the article title. I was merely attempting to explain in the lead that the English translation of the French name is not, even in English usage, the regiment's official name. Which is why I was confused by UN's edit summary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, I have a couple of related questions regarding CBC and possibly NFB rich media in the external links. First, I see that we currently have four links to CBC rich media pages in their digital archives:

However, as indicated in the parentheses, the 2nd and 4th ELs are simply French versions of the preceding English webpage. I can't see a policy against this, but it seems to me to be unnecessary link clutter, as we do of couse have a French-language article on the regiment, for francophone readers.

Also, the NFB now has their own playlist for the regiment, here, which features excerpts from the documentary The Van Doos in Afghanistan.

I propose to cut the two French language CBC mirror links and add the NFB's to the bottom of the list. Are there any objections? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are times where it is necessary and appropriate to provide a non-English external link (almost always where there is no English-language version), but there is no need to provide alternatives to the English links in other languages. It is particularly unnecessary where, as in this case, the English external pages already contain links to the French-language versions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done If anyone objects please discuss here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support actions taken Moxy (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Why the title is Royal 22nd Regiment, while even the first sentence of the article says that officially and in the usage in English the name remains Royal 22e Régiment? Even in the common usage in English, nobody use "22nd", every body say "22e" or "vandoo". Official publications in English also always use the official name (in French) nowadays. It is a proper name, ans as such, not translatable. All other Regiments who has English official proper names are not translated on the French Wikipedia. Obviously, it still should be explained that the name means "22nd", but it shouldn't be the title of the article. Amqui (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ERROR : confusion between Voltigeurs and the Van Doos...

[edit]

It is written : « The War of 1812: Défense du Canada 1812–1815,[17] Châteauguay, Ferme Crysler[18] »... These were VOLTIGEURS, light infantry battalions constituted by George Prevost and put under the command of Charles-Michel de Salaberry : they have nothing to do with the 22 Royal Regiment!!! --HawkFest (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012 the R22eR was designated to perpetuate several units from the War of 1812 and the R22eR now holds those honours as a result of these perpetuations. Here’s a good article on these new perpetuations and battle honours: War of 1812 Battle Honours perpetuated by Canadian Army Units Indefatigable (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal 22nd Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

I corrected a caption which mistakenly stated that Marshall Fayolle was the recipient of the regimental colours. He was actually *presenting* them at the request of Marshall Foch who had been made Honorary Colonel of the regiment.

Source: Official Facebook page of the R22R https://www.facebook.com/100R22eR/photos/a.549424398459103/549424505125759/?type=1&theater&hc_location=ufi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc pasquin (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title - May 2020

[edit]

I have just corrected a change that had removed "Royal 22e Régiment" from the regimental identification in English. I do not wish to raise the debate of 2011 that ended up with titling the page Royal 22nd Regiment. But Wikipedia is a reference used by journalists, writers, students and other people who need to know what the right name of the regiment is. This issue becomes even more acute since the name of the regiment, and indeed the whole issue of having French-speaking regiments, has been long debated by those who don't want to pander to the French. But it is important for Wikipedia to get its facts straight or else it loses its value. We have no choice if some members insist on anglicising names. But it is essential, so as to be factual, that the "official" and "most widely used" name of the regiment nevertheless be available to inform those who look up Wikipedia for correct information.Apr 28th, 2020 in confinement! 70.80.20.70 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have again adjusted the wording to reflect WP:TONE. Thank you for the source at Termium Plus, that is a great reference for GoC official naming policy on the regiment. I've put a prominent note beside the initial use of the English name to indicate the usage of the French name is official and used in both languages. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC); edited 18:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

_________ I understand the above deletion of the official name of the regiment. If it is an issue of "tone", the most useful change would be to put the correct official name of the regiment in the article heading, as in all other Canadian Wikipedia pages for English and French language regiments. However,in 2011, there were a few (3-4) opponents of such a solution, who were able to control the "system" to the extent of changing the correct heading that had been there for decades. However, I suggest as a model the page on the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry whose title is a bit long for use in ordinary English. The Wikipedia page nevertheless uses their proper name as the heading. Then the first sentence says "Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI, generally referred to as the Patricia's[a 1]) is one of the three Regular Force infantry regiments ..... " In the same spirit it would be easiest to put the proper full name of the Royal 22e Régiment in the heading of the article and text in the first sentence that deals with any title issues - such as with the Patricias. I have inserted in the R22eR page first sentence " Royal 22nd Regiment, officially in English or French Royal 22e Régiment, is one of Canada's .... ". However I don't have the courage to change the page title, despite the fact that it is the obvious solution. Many fail to recognize the importance of Wikipedia as a reference believed to be generally correct. The first sentence of an article is reflected in Google searches, Facebook pages, and other secondary sources. It is used by journalists, in Canada but also overseas as in NATO Europe or Afghanistan and Irak to write about the "Van Doos". It is used by speach writers. It is therefore necessary to ensure that its pages are correct. With this in mind, it is essential that the first sentence of the article on the Regiment include its correct name, rather than only a literal translation. A Footnote to give this essential information is inadequate. I have no pride of authorship, but I hope we agree that the obvious information in the first key sentence of the article must be factually ccorrect in regard to the Van Doos. 30 April 2020 70.80.20.70 (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC) ____________________ Please excuse my reinsertion of the words you deleted. In my limited knowlege of Wikipedia, it is the only way I know of to initiate a talk with you. I examined your ref to WP Point. It says "If someone deletes from an article information which they call "unimportant" or "irrelevant", which you consider to in fact be important to the subject... do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion. do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant"." I followed this rule to the letter. The correct name in English of the Van Doos is "Royal 22e Régiment" since 1928. I have not deleted anything from the article. I added 3 or 4 words. I have already pointed out in TALK that the name in English of the article's subject is important, indeed essential, giving the required references. A footnote that few people read, and which does not appear in copies of the first Wikipedia sentences used in other publications, does not do the job. On the contrary it widely promotes the false impression that "Royal 22nd Regiment" is the legitimate official name, rather than an incorrect literal translation, as explained in the footnote. You suggest changing the name of the page, which is the obvious solution and fully consistent with the Wikipedia treatment of all Canadian "French language Units" of the Infantry and Cavalry (see 12e Régiment Blindé du Canada, Régiment de Maisonneuve as examples of the large number of units in that situation). However, I hesitated previously to do this because of the History page opposition. In accordance with your most recent note, would you accept that I change the name of the page to its original name of Royal 22e Régiment, thereby avoiding the issue of explaining what its correct name is.? 70.80.20.70 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 10 May 2020[reply]

Wikipedia has a manual of style that relates to francophone institutions in Canada (it can be found at MOS:CAFR): "Where there is a single standard and generally accepted English name for the institution, use that rather than the French name (e.g. National Assembly of Quebec rather than "Assemblée nationale du Québec") regardless of whether that name is 'official' or not." There are a significant number of sources (from Canadian government as well as domestic and foreign media) in the article using the English-language title "Royal 22nd Regiment" showing that it is a generally accepted English-language title for the regiment, despite not being official. However, guidelines such as those in the MOS are not set in stone and exceptions can apply. Continuing to undo edits back and forth is not conducive to making a good Wikipedia article. If you believe there is a good reason to move the article to "Royal 22e Régiment", and I certainly believe you do, then you can open a requested move discussion and make the case why an exception can apply. The method to open a discussion is detailed at WP:RM#CM. RA0808 talkcontribs 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found the reference to francophone institutions in Canada most relevant.In particular, its refernce to (e.g. National Assembly of Quebec rather than "Assemblée nationale du Québec"). if you google Quebec National Assembly it will bring you to the Quebec website that translate Assemblée nationale to National Assembly.http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/index.html?appelant=MC. Thus the English translation of the name is used and promoted by the Quebec Government (probably because it includes in English the "national" aspect). Some traditionalist anglos prefer to use the title of Quebec legislative assembly. Wikipedia also has a page for them entitled : The Legislative Assembly of Quebec The very first paragraph explains that this is the name of the lower house of Quebec's legislature until December 31, 1968, when it was renamed the National Assembly of Quebec. This is not at all the situation of the Royal 22e Régiment which since 1928 has been struggling to get its francophone nature and name recognized by a minority of anglo Canadians, who prefer the term Royal 22nd as resistance to the creation of French-language units in the Canadian army. Canada's Official Language Act has decreed that all government elements including the Military must have names in both official languages. this has been done. But the traditional Combat Arms units of the Inantry and Cavalry have been excluded because their names reflect historic fact of Canadian history, whether English or French. Thus Princess Particia's Canadian Light Infantry is never translated into French - nor is the Royal 22e Régiment translated into English - unless a researcher mistkaenly takes the Wikipedia page as a credible reference, which the danger I have been adressing. Wikipedia, perhaps unwittingly, panders to ethnic biais by removing the original title page of the regiment in Wikipedia 10 years ago and now removing any information (other than a miniscule footnote) to advise researchers of the regiment's correct and most widely used name in English. You misunderstand my intentions in your reply. I, of course, feel that the page name should be changed to the official name but I also fear that such would involve a lengthy exercise that would still result in a decision such as shown on the history page where two or three "authorities" are able to simply wipe away legitimate input, quoting style manuals.(Wikipedia is the first to insist that legitimate exceptions can and should be made and the titling of ALL other Canadian military units, both English and French, in Wikipedia is the prefect example. Another solution would be a page entitled Royal 22nd regiment for the traditionalists, Like the one on the Legislative Assembly of Quebec. it would explain to them how and why the name was changed in the 1920s and perhaps include the significant changes in Canada's use of the french language in the Armed Forces, as well as the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that used the Regiment as a model for the French language units of the Canadian Public Service as well as the oficial languages Act. All this has been thoroughly documented. But the experience of the R22eR Wikepedia page suggests that it has no appetite for such factual and politically neutral information. However, my hope was much more modest: simply to maintain the Wikipedia page as it was, containing in the first paragraph the essential information in regard to the regiment's name. The reason is not to "make a point" but to prevent misleading innocent reseachers, and other web sites, from using an unaccepted and ethnically charged identification of Canada's first Regular French-language unit. To delete this essential factual information, relegating it to a footnote, is in my view disloyal to the concept of Wikipedia. pushing it towards becoming a battle ground for promoting ethnic antagonism.The name of "Royal 22e Régiment" is used as the proper English name by the Government and Armed forces, by Termium, by the Canadian Encyclopedia and is by far the most used on Facebook. I did a google search (shown below) that reveals that the correct French name is currently used by double the number of English Google pages as is the English literal translation. If the "authorities" of wikipedia do not wish to recognize in 3 or four words the undeniable fact of the Regiment's correct official name, any further effort on my part would be futile. 12 May 2020 70.80.20.70 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC) .[reply]

In order to determine the frequency of use of a word or phrase, a Google search is most often used. Such a search is difficult and must be correctly structures so as not to mislead. Here is how to do a Google search of the number of times Royal 22e Régiment is used vs the use of Royal 22nd Regiment in current English. The Google search application, although much improved, still cannot accurately count the uses of a whole phrase consisting of three words. It will instead count any set of phrases that include “regiment” and “Royal”, as well as phrases that have 22nd in them. “Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment” as well as “Camilla's royal career... 22nd April” are examples. “Verbatim” does not work, currently. The results, in the tens of millions, are obviously not correct. Therefore, the title phrase being searched must be enclosed in quotation marks. But when that is done it does not distinguish between 22nd and 22e. the word “regiment” is another problem because many publications, particularly in former years, do not use accents in an English text and will print “Royal 22e Regiment”. The solution is to search for “Royal 22nd” -22e. This keeps the two words, Royal 22nd, together and the insertion of -22e eliminates French versions. The word regiment is simply not inserted because the lack of accent does not necessarily differentiate between English and French. The use of ANY TIME, for the search period, is not helpful, because it searches over one hundred years of text that is constantly being added to the Google data, from historical sources. Word usage changes over the years and Wikipedia seeks to present the latest, current usage. Google allows specific date ranges to be selected for searches. I selected ranges of years starting at 1 january and finishing 1 january 2020. Finally Google allows the identification of language of the document of use, although it does not appear to be very accurate for obvious reasons – the multitude of bilingual pages, particularly in Canada, must cause difficulty in determining the language of the text. Finally, it must be noted that this search excludes articles that include both an English and French version of the name such as historical texts that discuss the Royal 22nd Regiment of 1920, but then use the French version to cover the subsequent 100 years after 1928. I have no solution for that, but hopefully it does not harm the conclusions. The results are displayed as follows: TF TIME FRAME R22nd/R22e(English pages) For example’TF2019 311/1860(706) shows (1) timeframe from 1jan 2019 to 1 jan 2020 (2)Royal 22nd used 311 times/ (3) Royal 22e used 1,860 times((4) number of times Royal 22e used on English page = 706 times). Here are the complete results: TF ANY TIME 45,600/105,000(E42,800) TF1950 5900/10,600 (E3,500) TF2000 4530/9640(E3330) TF2010 3820/8440(E2800) TF2015 2560/7020(E2470) TF2017 2030/3970(E1620) TF2018 1910/2980(E997) TF2019 311/1860(E706) TFPAST_YEAR 401/2550(E898). Conclusion: Using the complete Google data base covering the 105 year history or the Van Doos, Google shows 45,600 uses of Royal 22nd Regiment and 105,000 uses of Royal 22e Régiment, of which 42,800 uses of the French version were identified by Google as being on an English page. More recently, in the year 2019, there were 311 uses of Royal 22nd and 1860 uses of Royal 22e, of which 706 were on pages identified as English by Google. In the “past year” the data tells the same story: 401 uses of the English version of Royal 22nd and 2550 uses of the French version (Royal 22e) of which 898 were on pages identified as English by Google. Clearly, throughout the whole historic period covered by Google, the use of Royal 22nd and Royal 22e, on English pages, appears to be about equal, with the anglicised R22nd being used 5% more than the official R22e version on English pages. However, in the current era, the tendency has clearly been in favour of the use of the official French name of the regiment, even on English pages. The difference in use being about 100%. Or Royal 22e is used double the times that Royal 22nd is used on English pages.12 May 2020::70.80.20.70 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

order of precedence

[edit]

The order of precedence presented here conflicts with the one here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General%27s_Foot_Guards

And I don't know which is true. 173.206.150.242 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GGFG page is wrong. R22eR is last in the Regular Force infantry units, and GGFG is 1st in Reserve Force infantry, but there is a whole pile of non-infantry Regular Force units that take precedence over the GGFG. I'll fix the article. Indefatigable (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_22nd_Regiment&oldid=1236418291"