Talk:The Famous Five (Canada)

The Famous Five

The "The Valiant Five" probably is less used than "The Famous Five". But, both are used. And, since this artcle is named "The Valiant Five", it seems that term must be used as the standard everywhere in wikipedia, including on the individual women's pages. The term "Famous Five" should appear as the alternate name, in each article. I wouldn't object to changing this, but if you do, please do everywhere, and be consistent. --rob 5 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

• Strange that this article was renamed "the Valiant Five", when "The Famous Five" is by far the most common name. Skeezix1000 12:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If it was worth renaming the article, it would have probably make sense to update the articles of the actual members, who in some cases still only use the "valiant" term. Most backlinks still are to "valiant". --Rob 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It would also be worth mentioning it to the user who moved the article, who has yet to post a comment here. --Skeezix1000 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Although I'm here after the fact, kudos on the move of this article to "The Famous Five". Skeezix1000's assessment on which is the more common name is probably the correct one, and it always had me scratching my head why the article had (arguably) the less prominently used title. Fluit 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First woman elected in the Empire?

• I'm just questioning the legitimacy of the woman who was elected to the Albertan legislature as "the first woman elected to a legislature in the British Empire." Countess Constance Markievicz was elected to Westminster for Sinn Fein in 1918, but she didn't take her seat. This may be my error, but I'm wondering if it's an inaccuracy (first woman to take up the seat maybe? first woman elected to a federal legislature?) or a case of wiki exaggeration! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.26.123 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Louise McKinney was elected to the Alberta Legislature in the Alberta General Election, 1917. Countess Markievicz was elected in the British general election of 1918. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

History 208 Reviews

This article is well-written in a precise and accurate manner. The writer is successful in providing the reader an unbiased view of the events that the “Famous Five” were involved in. However, it should be considered that the article is quite short and lacking certain details. An example would be more detail on social context, as in conditions for women in this time period. The article is successful in demonstrating the impact that the “Famous Five” had on women’s rights. In this article it is not explained why these five women created the petition or why there was so much political resistance. A reader may be left with questions on how the “Famous Five” achieved their goal. The article demonstrates the idea that public opinion on the “Famous Five” differed at the time. Yet, when it is mentioned that some people are “disturbed” by some of the women’s opinions on other issues, the statement is not explained and it would be beneficial to have more detail on this point. The article provides accurate dates and gives the reader a general overview of the achievements of the “Famous Five”. The article demonstrates this information with an appropriate level of language and proficient vocabulary. There are links provided for each individual member of the “Famous Five” yet practically no information about each woman on this article page. It could be considered useful to add background information on these women as to how they joined together to become “The Famous Five”. On this particular page there is no detail whatsoever to their age and how they came to be known as a group rather than different activists with similar views. The article does list its references however, there are still some citations needed within the article. There are some high-quality visuals of statues made in honour of the “Famous Five” but no pictures of the women as they were living. The visuals are more focused on symbols of memorial of the women rather than insight into how they were in their time of activism. This could be a welcome addition to the article. An external link is given of the “Famous Five Foundation” yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. It should be considered to include more information on why the foundation was created within the article so that the reader may understand why the external link is included. It is mentioned what each member of the “Famous Five” did in their respective careers, yet more information could be added to any further achievements after they were successful in the “Persons Case”. This could possibly include why it was decided to make them “honorary senators” as well as how they became members of activism and political change. The article has been made accurate as well as to the point but some effort could be made to make it more detailed and interesting for the reader. The introduction of the article is not laid out particularly well as the information on the petition is thrown together in the first paragraph rather than laid out in any certain structure. This can be rather confusing to read and understand. Overall, the quality of the article could be improved in length and detail yet its comprehensiveness is relatively satisfactory. The coverage of the topic is general and could use some improvement to make it more informative as to who the “Famous Five” were as a group. The referencing is mostly completed with just a couple citations missing. Although there are links provided to give more specific information, it would still be an improvement to add detail to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcoutts12 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. You are correct about those details which are missing from the article. I'm glad you picked up on the "disturbed" part. The article strays off topic there and should stick with the group's impact; their personal traits should be discussed in the own biography articles. maclean (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to start out by saying the referencing throughout the article looks really good. The first thing I noticed was the lack of headings, and organization. The more headings there are the less intimidating it is as a reader, do this instead of bullets for the woman’s names. The lead paragraph is the only real part of the article that I had difficulty reading. Remember that many people who read your article will have no background knowledge of what the famous five did so I would like to see more information even if it is just a brief summary of what "section 24" says about persons. You did a great job of staying on topic in the article and staying on topic. Everything seems well done and accurate. There are a couple spots that need more information like where it states that the "petition was filled" what petition? and small grammatical errors that could make it sound more fluent like in the introduction you state "in the case Edwards vs. Canada" just add a of in between case and Edwards. Also the new headings added and the organization from other Wikipedia authors that were added after your input I would keep but I would like to see the section that was deleted put back into the article but underneath its own separate heading and not in the introduction. Also I would like to suggest that anytime throughout the article when you mention a woman specifically it should be under the specific title with her name just to ease the readers looking for specific detail. Otherwise excellent article. It wouldn’t hurt to go through everything again and just look carefully at where you think another one could be added. It was very thorough with a great deal of relevant information and stayed on topic. I think you did a really good job! I am excited to see what it looks like when it is completed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smbourne (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree that the lead paragraph needs some work, and a comprehensive copy-edit would be helpful; will attend to it if I can find the time. There are two reasons I deleted the section on the court case. The first is that the court case already has its own, detailed article. I don't think it's useful to try to duplicate that information in this article, which is more about the five women. The second reason I deleted that section was that it was inaccurate. For instance, it repeated the old myth that any 5 Canadians can petition the Supreme Court to consider constitutional issues. That's simply not correct; only the federal Cabinet can refer constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. For those reasons, I thought it better just to delete that section and add a link to the article on the court case itself. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall it seems to be a very good, well written article. The introduction, I think could use a little work. For those individuals that know nothing about these women to might be confused as to what certain things are, such as section 24 of the British North America Act is. I suggest perhaps adding a brief explanation for such things. Also I am not sure that it is completely necessary to have the names of the women in bullet form and the summary of who they were, might be easier to simply combine the two. Michaela.constant (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've merged these three reviews into one section, as I gather the reviewers are all participating in this Wikipedia:Canada Education Program class. Please note that this article pre-dates this class by many years, having been begun on December 11, 2003, and having been steadily expanded since then by a number of different wiki-editors. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The writing in this article is clear and well written. It is easy to understand the language and tones being used. The sections are well organized and eas to navigate depending on what the reader is looking for. The images help to show who the women are and provide the reader with a mental picture to aid in understanding. Kdufour5525 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Valiant Five?"

I've added a "citation needed" to the term "Valiant Five". This article is the only place I've ever seen the term used. I just spent some time googling around, and the only use of the term that I found is this article itself. Does anyone have any citations to show the term "Valiant Five" is or ever has been used to refer to them? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that "Valiant Five" is also used in the wiki articles on each of the women, so I've added a similar request for citations to each of those articles as well. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Incorrect Statement about the Petition to the Supreme Court

I have again deleted the incorrect information posted by Rcoutts, which stated that any five people can petition the Supreme Court to hear a constitutional case. This is, quite simply, wrong, as I previously indicated. First of all, there is no mention of the Supreme Court of Canada in the BNA Act (now the Constitution Act, 1867). The Act simply gives the Parliament the power to create a "General Court of Appeal"; there is certainly no mention of the petition power mentioned by Rcoutts. The text of the Act is availalble here: see s. 101. That is the only reference to the Court. Second, the power to refer questions to the Supreme Court is set out in the Supreme Court Act, as discussed in the article on reference question. It is solely a power of the federal Cabinet, not of individual citizens. The Famous Five's petition was to the federal government, asking the Cabinet to refer the matter to the Supreme Court; it was not a petition to the Supreme Court itself. Finally, there is already a detailed article on the Persons case on wikipedia, to which I have previously posted a link in this article. This article is about the Famous Five themselves, while the other article is about the court case. When writing for wikipedia, it is recommended that articles not be overlapping to the extent that Rcoutts' post does - each article should provide distinct coverage of a particular issue, with cross-references to other, related articles. Given these defects in the post, I have deleted it entirely. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Origins of the name 'The Famous Five'

When did the term The Famous Five, as used for these individuals, first come into use? I see no reference to that specifically, and since the women were working on different issues I wonder at what point someone decided to name them that.

There is, apparently, a commemorative plaque in honour of The Famous Five in the lobby of the Parliament Building in Ottawa, but I have not found out what it actually says on it. Suemcp001 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Tone

I removed one example, but the writing in this article seems uncomfortably close to hagiography. Also, if "Famous Five" is some sort of standard name for the group, shouldn't it be capitalized? And it definitely shouldn't be "famous 5". --Khajidha (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

In general I’ve the article does a good job of giving out unbiased information and gives enough perspective on the facts. The legacy section of this article though I’m not sure it’s needed and at times there are moments where there aren’t verifiable facts included into information about each of the Famous Fives legacies. Jbrazzle (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)