Jump to content

Talk:Name of Canada

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HistoryBA (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 2 October 2005 (→‎HistoryBA: This is getting ridiculous). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Usage of Dominion

Anyone here remember the 1960s? I don't, but I think that "Dominion of Canada" was in use until the 1960s, not just the 1930s as a recent edit indicated. Kevintoronto 19:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dominion was not as widely used in the late 19th century as we might think. Its heyday was in the first half of the 20th century. I think it was probably the government of Louis St. Laurent (1948-57) who began to phase Dominion out. Although Mackenzie King valued Canadian independence, he was a very cautious and wily politician who never stirred up trouble over minor matters. I can recall the late 1950s clearly and Dominion was in use in phrases such as "Dominion Building", "Dominion Elections Act" and "Dominion-Provincial relations". But it was really being used as a synonym for "federal" or "national". The process accelerated under Pearson (1963-68) and Trudeau (1968-) especially after the Official Languages Act when names like Dominion were unworkable in French e.g. the Dominion Bureau of Statistics became Statistics Canada about 1971 (it was Bureau fédéral de la statistique in French). I checked Library and Archives Canada catalogue and cannot see any Dominion-Provincial conference later than 1960. It was in the 1950s too that Royal Mail began to disappear (I vaguely recollect some people being upset). So, I would focus on the tenure of Louis St. Laurent as the beginning of the end for Dominion.--BrentS 22:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As to the statement that the Canada Act 1982 did not contain the word "Dominion", this is hardly surprising as it was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Constitution Act 1982 (all eleven of them) contains the word Dominion; the act of 1867 contains the word "Dominion" four times only, right at the beginning of the act. See the article on dominion. I suspect there is more history to this word than we know. Has anyone consulted the standard constitutional textbooks by Peter Hogg, Bora Laskin and Eugene Forsey to see what they have to say about the word "dominion" if anything?--BrentS 22:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article says "While the Canada Act 1982 does not use the term Dominion, neither does it amend the earlier usage". I had added " — though if the earlier usage of "Dominion" were not the official name, there would be no reason to amend it". Perhaps such wording needs to be improved, but if mention is made of not amending the name without such comment, it leaves the impression that the name was never officially changed. However, no evidence has ever been presented that the name was ever "DoC" --JimWae 03:40, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

---

Jim:

Hi there! Yes: your prior comment--which I removed--was unncessarily (and uncharacteristically) argumentative. A reference in the constitution which notes 'Dominion of Canada' can be found at:

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/const/endnts_e.html#(4) - (47), (2)

et al.

There is also a volume entitled 'The Oxford Companion to Canadian History' by Gerald Ed. Hallowell (Hardcover - June 2004) which summarises this discussion and reiterates what is required to officially 'change' the country's name.

Moreover, this section is quite clear about the status of the name. Note: I'm not challenging the predominance of which name is in common use, but to accurately provide a historical context and information regarding usage. Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 04:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the relevant section supposed to be 47-2? I see the usage of "Dominion of Canada" there, but nothing there that says what the name is -- though there is plenty elsewhere that plainly says the name is "Canada"--JimWae 04:22, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

---

Jim:

Hello. Yes, 47-2 with a number of indications below that. Quid pro quo. And you can consult the paper volume I cited. I am not going to regurgitate the apparently unending debate about what the official longform name is, as the section in this subarticle says it clearly. Obviously, I do not dispute citations about usage of 'Canada,' but you also seem to imply that usage of 'Dominion of Canada,' particularly in such a document (not to mention historical usage) is somehow illegitimate ... which is incorrect.

Remember: I'm not challenging what the name is and was and the prevailing reasons, but summarising de jure AND de facto information regarding usage. That's it. Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 04:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not at all what I am saying. The constitution acts say the name is "Canada" and never say the NAME is "Dominion of Canada" but do say "the Dominion named Canada".--JimWae 07:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

---

Jim:

Hello again! I understand and agree. Also consider the fact, though, that the Canadian constitution is comprised of written text AND unwritten conventions and practices, and the inference of Dominion in the country's name (implicit or explicit) has some support--though obviously waning--up to present day. We can both argue what the official name is until we're blue in the face (and I won't do so hereafter) and I'm not arguing that you're at all incorrect, but that doesn't erase its historical (written (as in the previous citation), oral, what have you) usage.

Enough said. :)

E Pluribus Anthony 11:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really enough said. As I said, including mention that the name was never amended implies it was at one time officially something different - which it very clearly never was. "Dominion of Canada" was an unofficial stylized name --JimWae 21:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

---

Jim:

Hello! I don't disagree; you will note, though, that section of the article indicates the Dominion of Canada as being 'official' (single quotes to appease hardliners). Moreover, it says "the Canada Act 1982 ... does not amend the earlier usage"; this earlier usage need not be limited to written constitutional texts where Canads's name is authoritatively listed (also comprised of unwritten conventions) but can also include historical usage as indicated: written or not, official or otherwise. And there is the Oxford reference I noted, as well, which elaborates, et al.

Truly enough said. :)

E Pluribus Anthony 02:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why Canadian?

Can anyone explain why the adjective is Canadian rather than Canadan? rossb 12:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just imitation of the french name. It was "canadien" ever since the begining so when the "united empire loyalist" arrived and later start adopting the name, they simply "ajusted" it.
As to why the french used the "i", its just part of the language, like "floridien". --Marc pasquin 01:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HieronymusBosch don't start an edit war

HieronymusBosch,

Go look up Feudalism, and Feudal Ranks yourself. I am not here to educate you. If you persist in interfering with my contribution, you had better have done your research on Feudalism, and Feudal Law by the time this goes to arbitartion. Don't go off half cocked.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArmchairVexillologistDon, you're making the claim so its you who needs to provide the evidence. This is not "your" article, you cannot just put in anything that pops into your head or that you think might be true but can't prove. I would suggest that you answer HieronymuBosch's question. Homey 01:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not making a claim, I am stating knowledge. If you doubt it, you go look it up yourself, Homeontherange. By the way, how did you get into this? ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"If you doubt it, you go look it up yourself"
I have. I can't find any evidence that what you say is true. Can you? If not, I'm afraid the claim has to go. Homey 02:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look futher, your say so "about looking" is not good enough. Back off, or go to arbitartion. Your choice.

I have purchased (they ain't cheap) "the Kingdom Papers" Volumes 1 and 2, and in it have carefully catelogues the discussion at the Quebec Conference on the wording of the Canadian Constitution (the British North America Act 1867), and the discussion of the Union's Feudal Rank (pp. 372-393).

References:

(1). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume I., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 331, (1912-1917).

(2). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume II., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 393, (1912-1917). ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don, you're acting as if you have an enormous sense of entitlement. You do not have a right to add whatever you want to articles and then refuse to substantiate the material you are adding. As I said, this is not your article, it's community property. If you can't accept that you'll never be able to get along as an editor. Homey 02:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homeontherange, you do not have the power to summarily remove contributions from articles "just because you looked and you couldn't find something". Don't waste my time. Either do some thorough research, or get off your harrassment of me. ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Homeontherange, you do not have the power to summarily remove contributions from articles "just because you looked and you couldn't find something"."
a) I haven't edited this article and thus haven't removed anything.
b) You're wrong, all editors have "the power to summarily remove contributions from articles" if the contributing editor refuses to substantiate his claims. See Wikipedia:No original research.
I suggest that, in future, if someone asks you to cite your sources you do so politely rather than respond with a lot of attitude and as if no one has the right to question you. Homey 02:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not original research. The reference is cited below. The summary deletion of this contribution by you would be vandalism (Ref. (2), pp.372-393, as per "Rank and Name" pp.374-381. Ref. (2))..

References:

(1). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume I., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 331, (1912-1917).

(2). J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers Volume II., McClelland, Goodchild, and Stewart Publishers, Toronto, Canada, pp. 393, (1912-1917). ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you should have politely provided the evidence when HieronymusBosch asked rather than give an arrogant and rude response. Next time drop the attitude. Homey 02:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"One Dominion under the Name of Canada," or "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada"

This is very odd. The phrase,

"One Dominion under the Name of Canada," or "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada"

something is very very odd. The French text "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada" translates as "a single, and same Power under the name of Canada." This could be a result of the divergence of "Quebec French" from "France French".

Something is really really wrong here.

http://www.canadiana.org/citm/_textpopups/constitution/doc102_e.html

The BNA Act 1867. Preamble (In Quebec French).

http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/PageView/92338/0005?id=9ed8f7ef26640db0

Considerant que les provinces du Canada, de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, de la Nouveux-Brunswick, on exprime le desire de contracter une union federale pour ne former qu'une seule, et meme Puissance (Dominion) sous la Courounne de la royaume-uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irelande avec une constitution reposant sur le meme principes que le royaume uni:

I am going to look into this. THERE IS A STORY HERE!!! ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of divergeance between European and Quebec french standard, the word dominion is simply not use in french unless talking about Canada in an historical context. In any other cases (I have dominion over the land, This shall be my dominion, etc....), francophones would use different sentence contruction. --Marc pasquin 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BrentS: My French Translations are highly suspect?

BrentS wrote,

English versus French meanings of the Dominion of Canada - French translations highly suspect - royaume is masculine, Unione??. THREE colonies united in 1867 to form FOUR provinces. Countries cede

Royaume du France is masculine? I thought France was feminine? Whereas Germany is masculine (the Fatherland). So if it is "le" instead of "la", how does this make my translation suspect? ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my understanding: Royaume is masculine, and France is feminine, so La France, but le Royaume de France. Same for Quebec: "Vive le Quebec libre", but "la belle province de Quebec" because province is feminine. Ground Zero | t 13:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is correct.--Marc pasquin 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less concerned with the accuracy of your translation than with its necessity. Also, your comment about dominion in French is wrong, it exists in French only as a loan word. Homey 12:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The French translation is accurate, and neccesary, and it is going back in. Homeontherange, you speak English and German, but you don't know that much about French. If you want to argue French with me, you are in for a trouching, indeed. The word "Dominion" is not a loan word, it exists in French, as the same word.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Could you please explain why you think the translations of UK and Kingdom of France are necessary?

They are relavent.
Le Royaume du Canada, that would be acceptable because le Royaume de la France, and le Royaume de la Grande-Bretagne fits the terminology. The French language makes that very clear.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2.As far as whether dominion is a loan word or not, I tried a couple of on-line dictionairies accessible from here:

The dictionnaire Littré (1872) [1]
DOMINION (entrée créée par le supplément)
(do-mi-ni-on) s. m.
Nom donné par les Anglais aux pays qui constituent le Canada.
La population de la confédération canadienne appelée par les natifs du nom de Dominion ou Puissance, s'élève donc à 3507475 habitants, Journ. offic. 8 sept. 1872, p. 5910, 3e col.
The dictionnaire de l'Académie française (1935) & dernière édition incomplète [2]
Il n'y a aucun mot-vedette qui s'apparie exactement avec la forme demandée.
Vous effectuez une recherche par appariement de forme exacte. Dans ce type de recherche, les opérateurs logiques ainsi que les caractères joker sont interdis. Les accents sont ignorés dans les recherches simples par mot-vedette. L'orthographe de certains mots peut changer en fonction de la date d'édition du dictionnaire. Les mots-vedette de cette collection de dictionnaires sont typiquement présentés par la racine et au masculin.
Tentative de recherche par similitude pour dominion sur tous les mots-vedette de tous les dictionnaires (constraint = 2) Vous êtes sûr de ces mots?: domination domino opinion
While the dictionnaire Littré includes the word, it seems pretty clear to me that itis as a loan word. The dictionnaire de l'Académie française does not include the word at all. There may well be, however, other dictionaries that I did not find. Ground Zero | t 14:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loan Word? Dominion? Rubbish. The word Dominion was first used in the English Language to define the Union of British North America. Kingdom of Canada was the original term. Dominion is BOTH a French and English word.

http://atilf.atilf.fr/Dendien/scripts/generic/cherche.exe?22;s=501415680;;

1)*DOMINION n. m. XIXe siècle. Mot anglais Dominion (XIXe siècle, pour désigner le Canada), emploi spécialisé de dominion, « puissance, domination, possession », puis « domaine placé sous l'autorité du seigneur », d'origine française.
Nom donné avant 1931 à des États qui, après avoir été des colonies britanniques, étaient devenus autonomes sous la suzeraineté de la Couronne britannique ; nom donné après cette date à ceux de ces États qui, devenus indépendants, se sont associés librement dans une communauté de nations, le Commonwealth, et reconnaissent la même suzeraineté.

The definition below,

puis « domaine placé sous l'autorité du seigneur », d'origine française.

Translates as

and "a Domain placed under the authorite of a Sovereign," of French origin.

The usage of Dominion (with reference to a Nation-State) in BOTH the English and French langauges began in 1867. Thus it is not a loan word. ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" Homeontherange, you speak English and German"

That's news to me. Homey 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homeontherange,
The French translations le Royaume de la France, and le Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne are there to show the similarities in language. The Kingdom of France was an Absolute Monarchy, however the United Kingdom of Great Britain is a Constitutional-Monarchy. The arbitary removal of those terms is vandalism, committed by you.
If you wise to go the ArbComm about my French Translation, be my guess. Do not remove them again.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AVD, we don't go to the Arbcomm over every little thing, certainly not over something like this, and I doubt they'd have any interest in hearing it so please stop saying "take me to the ArbComm" whenever someone disagrees with you. If you'd like a mediator to look at the question we can do that but it's pretty clear, I think, that the consensus is against you on this. Homey 23:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homeontherange,
My translations are going back in. They are relavent.
Le Royaume du Canada, that would be acceptable because le Royaume de la France, and le Royaume de la Grande-Bretagne fits the terminology. The French language makes that very clear.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Reference to the word "Dominion", and its French counterpart

As per the quoted text in the main article on Canada's name,

The term "dominion," as well as Canada's motto, are commonly attributed to Psalms 72:8 and Zechariah 9:10 of the Bible: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."

French Bible on-line http://www.info-bible.org/lsg/INDEX.html

Psaume 72.8

Il dominera d'une mer à l'autre, Et du fleuve aux extrémités de la terre.

Zacharie 9.10

Je détruirai les chars d'Éphraïm, Et les chevaux de Jérusalem; Et les arcs de guerre seront anéantis. Il annoncera la paix aux nations, Et il dominera d'une mer à l'autre, Depuis le fleuve jusqu'aux extrémités de la terre.

Thus, in the English text, the word "dominion" is used, and in the French text, the word "dominera" is used. The English usage of the word dominion means to dominate, to have the authority to rule. The French translation of "dominera" is to dominate, to have power over, or equally to have dominion.

Words to consider (a "domain" is something one rules, and to be "dominant" is to lead or rule),

English, French
Domain, Domaine
Dominant, Dominant,
Domination, Domination,
Dominion, Dominion.

The first use of the word "Dominion" in both English and French (as per a Nation-State), with regard to the name of this country was in 1867, as "the Dominion of Canada", or in French as "le Dominion du Canada."

The true reason for the use of the French word "Puissance" in the 1868 translation of the British North America Act 1867, has not been fully elucidated, as it was not neccesary to choose another word in French. There is more to this story, but I do not know what it is ... yet. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are reading words that aren't there. The French bible references you cite do not use the noun dominion, as in la Dominion du Caanda. They use the third person future formation of the verb dominer. Dominera does not translate as "dominion", but as "will dominate". But I don't see this argument going anywhere.
As far providing French translations for UK and Kingdom of France, you have not convinced me that they are in anyway relevant. The decision on "Kingdom of Canada" was made, according to various history books, on the basis that it would offend the Americans, and that the Colonial Office in London thought that it was too grand for a colony. I have not seen any discussion anywhere but here about whether it was "acceptable" in French or not.
Finally, your repeated cries of "take me to ArbCom if you disagree" are tiresome, miss the point of ArbCom, and are contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and Wikiquette. Please try to conduct yourself in a more co-operative manner instead of "going nuclear" at the slightest provocation. Ground Zero | t 13:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feudal rank

Regarding Homey's deletion, the concept of "feudal rank" as outlined by AVD does seem to be legitimate (see here), but it is does not seem to be at all relevant to an article on Canada's name. I do not think that the lengthy discussion of feudal rank, and especially the references to emperors, counts, dukes, barons, etc., is appropriate here. There was no discussion, as far as I have heard, of Calling canada an empire or a county or a duchy. The discussion was "kingdom" or "dominion", and the decision was based on the expected reaction of the Americans, and the sentiment in the Colonial Office that the canadians were getting too big for their britches. I think that, in addition to removing the translations of UK and Kingdom of France, we can remove the latin origins of kingdom and so on. this sort of info may be relevant in an article on feudal rank, but is fair too detailed for this article. We should not pile in all sorts of background information in order to support some argument or other that ends up being original research. Ground Zero | t 20:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go research Feudalism yourself, Homeontherange.
Keep up the harrassment, and I'll dump the whole page.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the extra stuff that is not directly relevant to the selection of the name of Canada. I have linked to feudal rank where much of that information belongs. Ground Zero | t 23:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, I have put it back in. It is very relavent material. The sentences that I have kept re-instating are not excessive in length, or an undue burden to Wikipedia's bandwidth. Their presense makes the whole story crystal clear to anyone that would read it. The information is factual, correct, and very compact. The sentences present all the relavent information in a very succinct, yet illustrative vein-of-thought. Their repeated deleting by you (and others) is not warranted (unless you folks thrive on petty vindictiveness). Please let this go, and let these few sentences stand. They really improve the article, in informativeness, and scope.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it, Don, that everyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant, stupid, petty and/or vindictive? I have encountered few people on Wikipedia who meet those criteria. Please accept that other editors have their own views on what should or should not go into articles, and that they hold those views on the basis of what they believe makes a good article. Please review and take seriously the Wikipedia commentary on assuming good faith. I deleted because I really, really think that it is not appropriate for the article. In my opinion, you put in way too much detail that confused the issue and cluttered the article with stuff that was not relevant. I did not delete it because I am petty or vindictive. Explaining that an Earl presides over an earldom, or whatever it was, does not help explain how Canada came to be called a dominion. Please do not make personal attacks against people just because they do not have the same opinions as you. And you should review that Wikipedia policy while you're at it. Ground Zero | t 22:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, my material was relavent. It set the framework for the complete scale of Feudal Ranks of Domains, and their Rulers. It placed the Dominion of Canada in the proper context, to show its Feudal Rank. As well, it illustrated that we actually have one (something that you, and other editors ignore). Frankly, most of the Canadian Editors here are very un-informed about our British Commonwealth heritage, yourself included.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I overlooked one insult from your catalogue. Let me clarify: Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant, stupid, petty, vindictive and/or uninformed? Have a rainbow day, Don. Ground Zero | t 23:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, yes you are either un-informed or you ignore the value of the posted material. The Dominion of Canada was the long form offical name chosen by this country, at it founding on July 1, 1867 (i.e., our first Dominion Day). The word Dominion is also a Feudal Rank, equal to Kingdom, Realm, and Union. These are all facts, yet you ignore their value in being included in the article.

So what does that make you then? Un-informed, or ignorant? ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. <sigh> I just disagree with you about the value of cluttering the article with this stuuff, because, like most people, I don't share your quaint obsession with monarchy, feudalism, and out-of-date terminology. Have you ever considered the possibility that it's not that the rest of us here are difficult to get along with, but that maybe it's you who is difficult to get along with? Ground Zero | t 02:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero,

What is the topic of this articles talkpage? Canada's name.

Now, this extra article (Canada's name) was created because of people (like me) who wanted the Dominion of Canada put in the first sentence of the main Canada article.

We all know that the "enlightened majority" here at Wikipedia would not have the Dominion of Canada put in. So hence this page. Next up, the contested source of the Dominion of Canada required the discussion of quaint terms like monarchy, feudalism, and "out-of-date" terminology.

I could go on the make a snide comment about "your lack of enthusiasm" about the origin of Canada's long form offical name, but I won't. I'll try a simple analogy, how can one talk about Football, without using words like Tackle, Touchdown, N-Zone, Interception (i.e., the sports terminology relavent to Football)?

Anyways, if you're not interesting the discussing the topic at hand with the neccessary terminology, hey that is fine by me. ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Now, this extra article (Canada's name) was created because of people (like me) who wanted the Dominion of Canada put in the first sentence of the main Canada article."

Actually, this article was created by User:Kevintoronto who is now known as Ground Zero. Homey 04:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you made a snide remark about the "enlightened majority" instead. I guess you just can't accept that you are part of a community here, and that the community does not accept eveything you put down. Well, too bad. That is how Wikipedia works. Your inability to convince other editors of your view on various issues does not mean that they are uninformed. It means that you have been unable to convince them becuase your arguments are frequently unsubstantiated, they frequently go off on unrelated tangents, and there is too much evidence on the other side. I gave up on following most of the sources you provide because they are usually wild goose chases. There is lots of information about feudal rank in the Nobility article, to which I linked this article for your benefit. It should not be here because there is no evidence that the Fathers of Confederation and the Colonial Office had extended discussions about it.
If we were talking about football, we would link to the appropriate terminology, not provide lengthy definitions of each term. Canyou imagine a game commentator explaining what a tackle is when one is made? Or a explaining what a touchdown is? If readers want to know more about feudal ranks, they can go to the linked article.
And Homey is quite right: I created this article because the Canada article was getting weighed down by discussio of the name, and I wanted to add information on both supposed origins of the name, and alternatives that were considered (Tupona, Borealia, etc.) Creating a branch article was an appropriate way of handling this.
And let's be clear: moving the discussion of Canada's name from Canada to Canada's name does not mean that you get to post your own theories and research here. This is still a Wikipedia article,
When did I even say that? I never said that. Back off Ground Zero, I don't appreciate your threatening attitude.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and must follow Wikipedia's rules, which I know cause great difficulty for you. But that's the way it is here on the world's biggest encyclopedia. Ground Zero | t 04:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, the main Canada article was getting weighted down with the Dominion of Canada issue because there are a few people like me that want to our country called by its true name. I thank you for making this page. I did not know it was you. Again, thanks.

Next up, you have clearly stated that you are not interested in quaint terms like monarchy, feudalism, and "out-of-date" terminology , this however does not exclude them from the discussion. So I shall continue along that vein-of-thought.

Lastly, yes I do think "the enlightened majority" was wrong in voting that Canada is this country's long form offical name. I believe it is the Dominion of Canada, and that is what I am going to discuss here, with all the tools that are made available. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ground Zero: Re. Hostility, Following the Rules, and "Tricks"

Ground Zero wrote,

And let's be clear: moving the discussion of Canada's name from Canada to Canada's name does not mean that you get to post your own theories and research here. This is still a Wikipedia article, and must follow Wikipedia's rules, which I know cause great difficulty for you. But that's the way it is here on the world's biggest encyclopedia. Ground Zero | t 04:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When did I even say that? I never said that. Back off Ground Zero, I don't appreciate your threatening attitude. ArmchairVexillologistDon 12:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero wrote,

So you made a snide remark about the "enlightened majority" instead. I guess you just can't accept that you are part of a community here, and that the community does not accept eveything you put down. Well, too bad. That is how Wikipedia works. Your inability to convince other editors of your view on various issues does not mean that they are uninformed. It means that you have been unable to convince them becuase your arguments are frequently unsubstantiated, they frequently go off on unrelated tangents, and there is too much evidence on the other side. I gave up on following most of the sources you provide because they are usually wild goose chases. There is lots of information about feudal rank in the Nobility article, to which I linked this article for your benefit. It should not be here because there is no evidence that the Fathers of Confederation and the Colonial Office had extended discussions about it. Ground Zero | t 04:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero wrote,

If we were talking about football, we would link to the appropriate terminology, not provide lengthy definitions of each term. Canyou imagine a game commentator explaining what a tackle is when one is made? Or a explaining what a touchdown is? If readers want to know more about feudal ranks, they can go to the linked article. Ground Zero | t 04:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero wrote,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:E_Pluribus_Anthony
Canada

Anthony, I encourage you to cull material out of this article. It seems to need a regular cleaning to keep it to a manageable size and as an oerview article. It seems that a lot of people want the main article to hold all the information on their pet areas of interest. A word of caution about removing "Dominion of Canada", though. There are several people who pop up every so often to insist that the official name of the country is still that. See the Talk page and archived talk pages for more. the wording that was in there seemed to trick them into thinking that we were accepting their point, although the reference to "styled Dominion of Canada" actually was in the past tense, so if you read it carefully, you'd realise that the article was not sying that it still is. We'll have to see if any of these people are still around. Good luck in your editing. Kevintoronto 21:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on your recent edits. They really help the article read better. Ground Zero 14:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (the editor formerly known as Kevintoronto)

the wording that was in there seemed to trick them into thinking that we were accepting their point,

My response:

Don wrote: "Now, this extra article (Canada's name) was created because of people (like me) who wanted the Dominion of Canada put in the first sentence of the main Canada article."

  • This was the basis of my concern that you view this page as a place where you can post whatever you want about Canada's name, regardless of the views of other editors. If you are, howevber, willing to accept the decisions of the community on this page as well, then I will withdraw my comment that "moving the discussion of Canada's name from Canada to Canada's name does not mean that you get to post your own theories and research here."

Don wrote: "I don't appreciate your threatening attitude."

  • Reminding you of the rules of engagement of the Wikipedia community including etiquette is not threatening. And given the disregad and contempt that you show for other editors on a regular basis, I don't think you are in a position to complain about attitudes.

Don wrote: "there are a few people like me that want to our country called by its true name.... Lastly, yes I do think "the enlightened majority" was wrong in voting that Canada is this country's long form offical name. I believe it is the Dominion of Canada, and that is what I am going to discuss here, with all the tools that are made available.

  • Again, you have failed to convince other editors who have patiently read and responded to your arguments for a couple of months now. Not even the [http:www.monarchist.ca Monarchist League] or the Royal Canadian Legion use the term "Dominon of Canada" on their websites. You have been tenacious promoting your unique view on these issues, and while tenacity is to be admired in most cases, here you are taking editors away from other, more productive activities.

As far as my comments to Anthony from five months ago, I do not think that they are relevant any longer because the section of the Canada article to which they refer has been re-written dozens of times. The point that I was making was that a couple of anonymous editors kept coming back to add "Dominion of Canada" without reading or responding to any of the discussion on the talk page. A way to address that was to leave the phrase in there without adding in the incorrect (in the view of almost everyone here) and unsubstantiated assertion that that term is official. The wording that I chose was not the best: it was a sloppy short cut to explain what I have explained here. If I were writing that comment to Anthony again, I would choose my words more carefully. But again, since you regularly make personal attacks against other editors and never withdraw them when asked, you are someone who cannot credibly hold other editors to best behaviour. Ground Zero | t 14:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ground Zero,
Well that was a "mouth-full", indeed. Hmmm, so I guess what you might be implying is that you intend to treat me with comtempt, from here forward. Okkie dokkie, so noted.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say that. I cannot control what you choose to infer. This is another example of you reading into what someone has written something that is not there. I do my best to treat other editors with respect, even when they do not respond in kind. I have occasional lapses, and when I have made a personal attack against someone, as I did against you, I have withdrawn it and apologized, as I did in that case. Ground Zero | t 15:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, look-it, for what it is worth I actually like you. When we discuss things like Flags, Coats-of-Arms, Constitutional History, I actually want to hear your opinion. I do listen to it, and consider it. Both of us have a belligerent side, that can be triggered. Your trigger is alot longer than mine. You have alot more patience than I do. I commend you for that, my lack of patience is my failing, "my Achelles-Heal".

All I am saying is that if you want to keep responding to me with continued comtempt, hey fine by me. It is not going to stop my discussion of Canada's name. By the way, I was quite offended by your comment on me "pushing my cock-eyed theories" on this Canada's name page. I am going to stick to the rules of Wikipedia, and cite everything (hence the long reference list). Anyways, after I finish my text and references, feel free to "blast-away" or ignore it. 'Tis up to you eh.

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find where I used the phrase "pushing my cock-eyed theories". It doesn't sound like a phrase that I would use, but it is possible. I just can't find it. That is not a personal attack anyway, because it was a comment about your theories, not about you. I've pointed out the numerous times you have ridiculed arguments that other editors and I have made, and you've never withdrawn or apologizd for those, so if you're looking for an apology, you're not going to get it this time.
Providing references is a good start, but not everything for which a reference is provided is appropriate for inclusion in an article. A lengthy treatise on the War of 1812 does not belong in Canada's name even if it is cited into oblivion. I will wait and see what you post.
I also encourage you to post it here on the talk page first and invite comments since your edits are often contentious. Opening a discussion would be a productive way of attempting to develop a consensus and avoiding a revert war. Ground Zero | t 16:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


"the War of 1812 does not belong in Canada's name even if it is cited into oblivion" ?

Wow. Okkie dokkie. It will be "blasting away", I see. No problem, 'tis fair game. Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've been keeping up with this topic periodically, and will comment generally (and briefly), and am surprised in how it has mushroomed.
Ground Zero and I chatted way back when about my editions to the Canada and related pages: not being a seasoned editor on Wikipedia, I made some editions before consulting and not cognizant of protocols. Ground Zero provided commentary, and no impropriety or conspiracy is afoot. My primary jist was that the Canada article (ideally a summary one at that) was getting far too long and contained too much detail; if you look at the edit history, you'll note I substantially reduced the length of the Canada article; this is now ancient history.
Similarly, I made editions to Canada's name, a subarticle where these discussions should occur. I logged an 'undecided' vote for Canada's name on the main article. I certainly believe that Canada is the official longform name. I also believe that DoC may be an official longform name or style: it is in the Constitution Act, 1871 (which partially comprises the BNA Act) and has never changed. Particularly since the Canada Act 1982, though, it is now disused for practical, linguistic, and other reasons. Moreover, issues of usage -- particularly in a Canadian constitutional context -- concern written text and unwritten conventions. Since DoC is 'in the books,' has not been repealed, and was used more frequently in the past (in written and verbal forms), it may not be wholly invalid. As well, there are references that do not wholly invalidate its usage (e.g., Eugene Forsey's "How Canadians Govern Themselves" -- though he was a staunch traditionalist -- the "Oxford Companion to Canadian History", etc.).
My point? The current edition of this article Canada's name, or at least the last section, is a modus vivendi where both positions can be reconciled and embraces varying viewpoints while still being factual (I think). Pending something more authoritative (e.g., constitutional amendment, legal opinion, word from above, act of God), I've reconciled this issue based on available information and personally; others can, too ... and diplomatically, at that.
Make sense? Thoughts? That's it for now. E Pluribus Anthony 14:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Anthony. Where I have ended up on this is that "Canada" is unamibuously official, while it is arguable that "Dominion of canada" was also official by virtue of usage. By the same token, it is no longer official because it has not been used officially for several decades. The Constitution Act, 1871 used the term, but did not say "the "Dominion of Canada" is the official name". Since it was never prescribed in a statute, it cannot be repealed by statute: any status that it had was determined by usage, and therefore its current non-status is determined by its non-usage. I don't know if I've made things clearer or not. Ground Zero | t 15:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there; thanks for the summary and feedback. I don't dispute your position and largely agree. I think, though, that -- whether it is characterised as a name or style -- that its mere mention in the constitution makes it legitimate (and thus a matter of debate, pending authoritative commentary and foregoing all user argumentation and positioning ... present company included) even though it was not prescribed as such. Alternatively: DoC is disused, superceded by a universal (and accepted) term, but may not be wholly invalid. E Pluribus Anthony 15:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 19 British American Colonies from (1763-1775)

British American Colonies 1763-1775

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

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

(1). Newfoundland,

(2). Nova Scotia (New Brunswick broke off in 1784, i.e., no included in map),

(3). Prince Edward Island (it broke off from Nova Scotia in 1770, thus in map),

(4). Quebec (in 1774 it was extended to include Northwest Territory (i.e., Ohio)),

(5). Massachusetts (includes Maine),

(6). New Hampshire,

(7). Connecticut,

(8). Rhode Island,

(9). New York,

(10). Pennsylvania,

(11). New Jersey,

(12). Virginia (it was only in 1863 that West Virigina was broken off),

(13). Maryland,

(14). Delaware Counties (later Delaware),

(15). North Carolina,

(16). South Carolina,

(17). Georgia,

(18). East Florida,

(19). West Florida.

Not including (20). the British Commerical Territory of Ruperts Land (Administered by the Hudsons Bay Company), and (21). Indian Territory.

Note: The 6 Loyalist Colonies of the 19 Colonies of are denoted in red.

I stand corrected. I was unaware of Florida's status in that era. And I forgot that P.E.I. was separated before the Amer. Rev., not after. Indefatigable 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Indefatigable,

No problem mate, I am glad that you check up on my contributions, as you always do it in a kind and respectful fashions. By the way, here is another interesting link of Canada to the USA,

(removed flags of Nova Scotia, Alabama, and Florida, not related to the discussion of the article on Canada's name.)

Interesting eh!

Take care, and best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homeontherange, don't screw with the references until I post my text

Homeontherange, don't screw with the references until I post my text.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JimWae,
I don't appreciate being "told" what are footnotes, and what are sources, before I even start writting. This is too much of pain in the ass. People editing before one actually posts the text. I have re-set the sources to what they were at the beginning. I may post J.S. Ewarts narration of the development of London Conference 1866. Other than that, I think I'll take a break from here.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll gauges Americans’ and Canadians’ knowledge of equivalent historical facts

Poll gauges Americans’ and Canadians’ knowledge of equivalent historical facts

Fully six in ten (63%) Americans pass compared to only 39% of Canadians

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=1255

July 1, 2001 - Dominion Institute / Ipsos-Reid poll conducted for Canada Day 2001 shows Americans know their history and civics far better than Canadians.
"The results show that six in ten (63%) Americans passed the quiz (scoring 5 or more correct responses out of 10) compared to 39% of Canadians. Highlights include: 1 in 4 (26%) Canadians think Canada is a representative republic; 22% believe “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is Canada’s constitutional slogan; and fully 90% of Americans could name their first President versus 54% of Canadians who could name Canada’s first PM."
"The Dominion Institute’s founder and Executive Director, Rudyard Griffiths comments, “So much for the dumb American thesis!” Griffiths continues: “Canadians would do well to pay attention to this poll. It provides yet another indication that the strength of a nation’s identity rests on its citizens sharing a common body of factual knowledge. In a world of globalization and value change, Canada should take heed of the American example.” "
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is here. Talk pages are not chat rooms. Don, have you posted this to try to imply that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue are in the 61% of Canadians who would not pass the test and you are in the 39%? That would be an ad hominem attack, and not appropriate.

I think that the Dominion Institute is a fine organization that does important work. I will note that this organization that "was established in 1997 by a group of young people concerned about the erosion of a common memory in Canada" does not use the term "Dominion of Canada" to describe the country.

As far as your posting of footnotes to text that you have not posted, we have been waiting patiently for a few days now, and nothing has appeared. I urge you to prepare the whole text and post it on the talk page for comment, rather than adding in bits and pieces of a work in progress. Wikipedia articles should not be treated as drafts. Ground Zero | t 13:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero,
(1). I stumbled across this article by accident.
(2). This article catelogues the general lack of historical knowledge of Canadians.
(3). This article does not identify anyone here at Wikipedia.
(4). I know this page is not a chat-room, nor a place for original research.
(5). I have reset the Sources on the Canada's Name article page.
(6). The "days" that people "waited" were about 1 day, and 6 hours (check time-stamps).
I am typing out J.S. Ewarts Narration of the London Conference of Dec 4. 1866 to March 29, 1867. As well I am typing out a Letter by Sir John. A. MacDonald regarding the change from "Kingdom" to "Dominion" at the London Conference. J.S. Ewarts narration(pp.381-385), and the said letter(pp.384-385), were published in J.S. Ewarts Second Volume of the Kingdom Papers, and Sir John A's letter was provided to Mr. Ewart by Sir John Pope. Sir John Pope also published Sir John A. MacDonald's letter in the Ottawa Citizen, July 26, 1917. I am sure our resident Librarian-Layman SimonP (or rather P. Simon) could double-check the newpapers reference.
I will type the text out (faithfully, and completely) and post it here in the talkpage of Canada's name. You folks can do with it what you will.
Editing here with "you people" is very tiresome, to say the least.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero posted,

So it is an article about Canadians' lack of knowledge about their history. What is it doing here on a talk page about Canada's name? If there is no reason for it, I'm sure you won't mind if I remove it. Ground Zero | t 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast Ground Zero. I do object if you summarily remove this part. This is relavent to the discussion at hand, and you are being biased and heavy-handed if your delete it. This is a talkpage, as you keep reminding me of. We are here to talk about relavent items to the main article. Are you saying that what is relavent is solely determined by you? ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero posted,

You can be sure that the rest of us feel the same way about dealing with you as you do about us. Ground Zero | t 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of "speaking for an un-named group" you could speak for yourself. Since you have broached the subject, then I will ask ... "how do you find dealing with me?" ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero posted,

I return to a question I posted earlier, does that mean that all the other editors here are difficult to deal with, or that maybe you are the one who is difficult to deal with? Ground Zero | t 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike some of "your ilk", I don't dodge direct questions. If you look at Point (2), and Point (3), that I posted above then the answer is clear. No, I do not specifically hold anyone here as difficult to deal with. The one person that I personally find impossible of deal with is Homeontherange. But as I shall re-state, that is a result of (what I believe are) the personality differences between him and I.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This is relavent to the discussion at hand". I posted the above comment to ask how it is relevant before I removed it in order to provide you (and anyone else) an opportunity to comment, spefically saying "If no-one objects". Ummm... how is this heavy-handed? It was a clear and unambiguous effort to generate a discussion. If I had gone ahead and changed this page without discussing, as you have so often done to the article, it would be different.
More importantly, you have still not explained how it is relevant. If there is a connection, please let us know what it is. If not, then let's remove it.
Points 3 and 4 do not answer my question. You are dodging the direct question. You may not "hold anyone here" as being difficult to deal with, but you did write: "Editing here with "you people" is very tiresome, to say the least." So let me rephrase the above comment: Does that mean that all the other editors here are tiresome to deal with, or that maybe you are the one who is tiresome to deal with?
Several editors here have posted comments about your behaviour here, and you have been banned for short periods, and there was an RfA related to your behaviour. So I'm not alone in being frustrated by you. Ground Zero | t 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ground Zero, as per your re-stated question,

Does that mean that all the other editors here are tiresome to deal with, or that maybe you are the one who is tiresome to deal with?


Talk about a loaded question. Fine. I preceive there are quite a few editors here that find me rude, and hard to deal with. I suspect that you are one of those number. Some for a point of view that the majority is always correct, then yes I am the problem. Happy now eh?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An Internet Reference for "Feudal Ranks of Country's Names"

"Miltary Ranks

http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm (Please read the bottom of the webpage).

What? When. The only link that I ever say was this ... "feudal rank". It lead to a Wikipedia page dominated by medievial French Nobility. Are you saying that originally it lead to the reference quoted above that I only found last night? If so then someone altered the link from the (Fresian) Feudal Rank page, "known as Miltary Ranks", to the Wikipedia page on French Nobility.
Look-it, if I had found this earlier, I most certainly would of posted this, if only for the purpose of having Homeontherange shut-up.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This "Internet Reference" is consistent with my much deleted(and perhaps detested) contribution on the Dominion of Canada name, and its Feudal Rank. Incidently, if ones looks up the Quebec Resolutions 1864 (there are 72), and the following London Resolutions 1866 (there are 69), one will note,

Rank and Name.--71.That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces.

then,

Rank and Name.--68. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Confederation.

Federatied Provinces of Canada (1864), then the Confederation of Canada (1866).

The Fathers of Confederation met at the Quebec Conference of 1864, to discuss the terms of this new union. One issue on the agenda was to determine the Union's feudal rank. In the feudal ranking system, an Empire, a Kingdom, a Principality, a Duchy, a March, an Earldom, a County, and an Estate are ruled by an Emperor, a King, a Prince, a Duke, a Marquis, an Earl, a Count (Viscount), and a Baron, respectively. The feudal rank of a Kingdom, Realm, Union, and Dominion are the same. The English words translate into the French words Royaume, Realme, Union, and Dominion, respectively. Thus, the candidates for the name of this new Union were as follows, "the Kingdom of Canada" (le Royaume du Canada), "the Realm of Canada" (le Realme du Canada), "the Union of Canada" (l'Union du Canada), and "the Dominion of Canada" (le Dominion du Canada).
The Latin word Regalis is the root of the adjectival form English word "king", "regal", and the French word Realme. The lands that a king (or sovereign) has the authority to rule over can be termed as a Kingdom, a Realm, or a Dominion, incorporating the Latin word Dominus (and its short form Dom).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's name: sources

Hi there! I have taken the liberty to do a little digging and provided some wholly relevant sources for content in Canada's_name#Sources. I would hope that the article and appropriate parties use this information to inform debate and enhance this article. I think they also support a balanced -- if ambiguous -- position. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 16:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello E. Pluribus Anthony,
Thank you very much for the contribution of the references to Canada's Name in the Sources section. I appreciate them very much. They are an interesting read, and add alot of food-for-thought to this issue. Thanks again for contributing them. Indeed.
Take care, and best wishes,
ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! E Pluribus Anthony 17:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my thanks. there are two passages from the documents that you posted that I think are relevant:

From the 1993 Eugene Forsey Memorial Lecture, A Lament for British North America, by Robert Martin, professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario:
The word ["dominion"] 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". [26]

This is my argument: "Dominion of Canada" was used. It is no longer. The various governments of Canada do not use it, and organizations that exist to celebrate our history and heritage (the Dominion Institute and the Royal Canadian Legion) and our connection to the monarchy (the Monarchist League of Canada) do not use it. So far, the only people we have found using it are a rifle club that does not seem to have got around to updating its name, and a couple of editors here.

From How We Govern Ourselves by Eugene Forsey:
The two small points on which our constitution is not entirely homemade are, first, the legal title of our country, “Dominion,” and, second, the provisions for breaking a deadlock between the Senate and the House of Commons. (p. 8)
Forsey then proceed to discuss only the second point. The "legal title" to which he refers is that of "Dominion", but he does not say that the official name of the country is "Dominion of canada", and he never uses the term "Dominion of Canada" (unless I've overlooked something).

To summarize, the usage of "Dominion of Canada" was never prescribed in statute, and therefore cannot be repealed. To the extent that it had any status determined by usage, that status no longer exists because it long ago fell into disuse. (Martin refers to the federal government ceasing to use it in the 1930s -- in other words, it has now been obsolete for longer than it was used in the first place. ) Ground Zero | t 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your analysis. I agree with it, largely. The usage is prescribed -- 'sanctioned' -- in statute (though indirectly) by simply being there: it is noted in the Constitution Act, 1871, et al. The term is disused and that is indisputable. Is the term invalid, though? I don't think so. (I think this is consistent with my prior/current position.) Even given its obsolescence, it does not obviate or invalidate usage of the term: past or present, legally or civilly. The Oxford reference I cited describes this as something that would need to be repealed (though I need to clarify this). As for other 'pertinent' current usage (in addition to everything cited): there is a legal reference text listed at the Privy Council Office site entitled Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada (4th ed.), and there is a position still on the books called Dominion Carillonneur. Moreover, I'm unsure if Forsey et al. used the term additionally (I'd imagine so, since he was a staunch traditionalist.)
My point is this: given this information (which was enlightening for me), I think the official longform name is dually Canada and Dominion of Canada, though the latter is disused and inconsistent with current zeitgeist. I think the information provided in the Canada's_name#Usage of Canada/Dominion of Canada section and how it is currently framed is valid in describing this issue. Alternatively: I am trying to provide information here and there without necessarily interpreting it, as others may. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 19:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Anthony, I did not see your lucid and well-researched analysis amidst Don's -- I don't know what to call it. Ground Zero | t 20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ground Zero, please refer to the section below (the Names Changes of the Netherlands). There you will see the evolution of long form offical name of the Netherlands, over a period of history. As per what you term my research as, well I really don't care. You can be as nasty as you want.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is an important difference between prescribed and sanctioned. DofC is sanctioned by the BNA Act 1871 by its use. That Act, however, does not say, "The official name of this country is the Dominion of Act". That would make it prescribed. I have never argued that the use of the term is invalid. Canada is a dominion, and the BNA Act 1867 says so, so calling it the "Dominion of Canada" cannot be incorrect, and having a position of "Dominion Carilloneur" or DofC in the title of Bourinot's (what is the date on that, by the way?) is not problematic. But the question we are struggling with is, what is the official name?
I would agree with you that by usage "Canada" and "DofC" were longform names in official use. The question is if they both still are. I don't think you have provided enough of the "Oxford reference" to make your point that official use of DofC would have to be repealed clear. Could you explain that a bit more, please? Many thanks. Ground Zero | t 20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks again for your summary and explanation. Yes, Bourinot is from way back when (4th ed., 1916), but is a technical legal text (on parliamentary process) still used.
I glanced at the Oxford reference while out; it is ... interesting in an odd way: it essentially asserts that 'dominion' is an official title no longer in common use but requiring a constitutional amendment to change it. I'll post it once I copy it as soon as I can.
To that end, I contend that the official longform name is unquestionably Canada or that there isn't one, only a short one. As well, it might be Dominion of Canada (as I previously noted) given the ambiguity of its status and prior usage, but the latter is likely more an official stylised name ... and disused. I'm not disputing contentions either way, but the evidence presented throughout has been varied and I'm loathe to unequivocally decide based on incomplete information (as others may or may not).
I would also request or caution limiting changes to the Canada's_name#Usage_of_Canada/Dominion_of_Canada until I cite the reference (though understand this may be unworkable) to ensure that users cannot assert this or that without providing sources: I don't deny the majority opinion or the current ... zeitgeist (see numerous prior posts), but pro and con assertions/interpretations must be referenced (and have not by others). After all: we are trying to improve and source the article and provide information to visitors, not make judgements. Even though removal of "earlier usage" is implicit -- and purposely vague (which I may change back, as it addresses legal and civil use, prior and current) -- I am generally satisfied with the current version of the Canada's_name#Usage_of_Canada/Dominion_of_Canada section.
And I think you are not qualified to determine what is prescribed ... for me, that is. ;) (Are you?) Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 03:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ground Zero,
Correct me if I am wrong, but you support the position that the offical name of the portion of the Island of Ireland that is currently not apart of the United Kingdom as having an offical name "Ireland", and not the Republic of Ireland.
You acknowledge the interpretation of the Irish Parliament (the Dail) that the term the Republic of Ireland is a description, but not an offical name. Historically,
(1). the Lordship of Ireland(1171-1543),
(2). the Kingdom of Ireland (1543-1801),
(3). absorbed into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921),
(4). partitioned (Dec. 21, 1921) in the Irish Free State, and the Province of Northern Ireland (which remained apart of the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
Now, the Irish Free State (1921-1937) formal passed a Constitutional Amendment in 1937 that offical re-named the Irish Free State as Eire (Irish Celtic for Ireland). Then in 1949, the Irish Parliament (the Dail) passed the Republic of Ireland Act 1949, but it did not change the Constitution clause that stated the offical name of the country was Eire.
The Correct Name for Ireland
http://alt-usage-english.org/ireland.html
Now, the Republican Irish have come with this convoluted position that the offical name is Eire, but the description of the country is the Republic of Ireland. This is ridiculous. And typically Republican Irish.
The Republic of Ireland is the offical name. To agree that is not is "hair-splitting". To offically resolve the issue the Republican Irish have two mechanisms
(i). a referendum,
(ii). a referal to the Irish Supreme Court.
The gutless Republican Irish have done neither.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okayyy... I was talking about the name of Canada, so I'm not going to be sidetracked by your bigoted rant about another country. The additional sources provided by Anthony state explicitly that the official name is Canada (Martin) or are silent on the issue (Forsey). Ground Zero | t 19:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero,

I am not trying to sidetrack you. I am illustrating that the name of the portion of the Island of Ireland that is currently not apart of the UK, and the name of former Colonies collectively known as British North America are based on the very same set of arguements.

Even the CIA recognises that countries have a longform offical name, and a short form local name.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

longform offical name:

shortform name: Eire (in English Ireland).

longform offical name:

shortform name: Canada

What the longform offical name's are though, is what is in dispute here.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the CIA recognises that countries have a longform offical name, and a short form local name."
It seems clear that the CIA is saying the opposite: according the CIA, Canada and Ireland do not have official long names. That field was left empty. We've been through the arguments about Ireland's name before, and even if it has an official long name that is different from its short name, that does not mean Canada has to have one. There is no world body that sets rules for naming that it can enforce on countries that don't follow the rules. And Professor Martin, as cited above, explicitly states that "Canada" is the official name. Ground Zero | t 20:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


No, the CIA had entered the word "none". This could be interpreted that the longform offical name is,

(1). non-existant, never made,

(2). no longform offical name was submitted by the Government in question,

(3). the short form and the longform offical name as the same.


Well. We could argue about which of the 'three possibilities that it is, but I simply don't have the energy to get into that one.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Name Changes of the Netherlands

The local name is "the Netherlands". The English have another local name called "Holland" (there are two Provinces in the Netherlands called North Holland, and South Holland). Anyways, over time this country has been called by the following names,

(pre-1581) The Province of the Spanish Netherlands, (a Province of the Kingdom of Spain),

(1581-1814) The United Provinces of the Netherlands, (an Independent Republic),

(1814-1831) The Kingdom of the United Netherlands, (an Independent Kingdom),

(post-1831) The Kingdom of the Netherlands, (an Independent Kingdom, minus the Belgium Territory).

So today, in the CIA Factbook database, it should read the following,

longform offical name: the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

shortform name: the Netherlands.


and "low and behold",

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html

it does say those very two things. Indeed.


ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop posting irrelevent material to the talk pages. Homey 00:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


No. Quite on the contrary, the evolution of the long form offical name of the Netherlands is very relavent. I provides a complete illustration of the spectrum of Feudal Ranks and Long Form Names. So that makes it very relavent, and helpful to this discussion.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relavent Countries to North America: A comparasion of longform offical versus short fofm, NAMES

Comment: If you're going to do this, use a table. E Pluribus Anthony 20:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, sure thing. I will use a table. I have not used a table before in Wikipedia, so I'll have to read up on how to do that first. Thanks again for listening to my arguements, and thank you for making the suggestion to use a table.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


longform offical name:

shortform name:


longform offical name:

shortform name:


longform offical name:

shortform name:

Zeitgeist

I am not familar with this word, or its connotations. But I have found this.

http://www.newalbion.com/artists/zeitgeist/


It this interpretation correct? (i.e., "the Spirit of the Age"). If so, does that mean that the spirit of the age is remove all reference to our British Commonwealth Heritage? If so does that mean that Canada wants to become a Republic? (i.e., the Republic of Canada).


Take care, and best wishes,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There is an online dictionary. My usage of the word is meant to imply the current situation regarding 'dominion'. No republican inferences are implied or intended. E Pluribus Anthony 20:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hello E. Pluribus Anthony,

Oh, ok. Thanks for pointing out that the German word Zeitgeist is referenced on the on-line dictionary.

Zeitgeist

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zeitgeist

I honestly had not heard of that word before, and I assumed becuase it was German that ole "dictionary.com" would not cover it. I should of checked, I apologise.

If I may ask what do you think "the spirit of the age" means with regards to only using "Canada" as this country's offical name? I honestly would be very interested in hearing your thoughts/opinions on this.

Thanks again eh,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. As well, my position -- which is not immutable -- is cited above. To address this directly to me or for further discussions, use my Talk page if you wish. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 20:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Okkie dokkie,

Ok, thanks alot from the Sources, and the comments here. I appreciate them alot.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Kingdom Papers Volume II, Pages 381-384

J.S. Ewarts narration of the London Conference Dec. 4, 1866, to March 29, 1867.


Kingdoms Papers Volume II (pp. 381-384).

Notes:

(1). the text below is reproduced verbatum (i.e., exactly as written),

(2). since J.S. Ewart is directly cited, this is not plagarism,

(3). the [Square Bracketed Text] denotes my own note, and is not Ewarts,

(4). the Bold Text denotes the large typeface used by Ewart,

(5). the Italisized Text denotes the exact text italisized by Ewart,

(6). the Blue Text, denotes the draft constitution text, and the final text appearing in the British North America Act 1867 (the last two blue coloured texts).


Delegates in London.—The next scene opened in London, where the delegates from the three provinces assembled “for the purposes of arranging the terms of the Union”. After discussions lasting from the 4th to the 26th December, 1866, the delegates agree to a series of sixty-nine resolutions. Three of these are the same as the three above quoted from the resolutions of the Quebec Conference [Note: this last sentence refers to something up the page that is not quoted in the typed out text, here. I included this last sentence for completeness].

Delegates First Draft.—The Conference then proceeded to draft a bill. Its noticeable features (for present purposes) are those of the clauses quoted. [Note: the numbers of the resolutions quoted in the next sentence refer to the 1864 Quebec Resolutions (there are72), and not the 1866 London Resolutions (there are 69)]. No. 3 (as to following “the model of the British constitution”) was omitted; No. 4 was repeated; the words “saving the sovereignty of England” were omitted in No. 29; and No. 71 (as to rank and name) was provided for by leaving blanks to be filled in afterwards.

Law Officers.—Meanwhile, the Imperial law officers were also engaged in drafting a bill. Its language will give some idea of what Sir John and other delegates had to struggle with. It recited:


"Whereas the Union of the British North America Colonies for the Purposes of Government and Legislation would attended with great Benefits to the Colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom".


and it proceeded to declare that


"the said Three Colonies shall be composed of" "The United Colony of shall be composed," etc, "There shall be a Governor-General for the United Colony," etc, "For each Province there shall be an Officer, styled the Superintendant," etc,


Delegates Second Draft.—The delegates produced a second draft. It is dated 2 February, 1867. The law officer’s draft had provided that


"the said Three Colonies shall be thenceforth form and be One Colony,"


Instead of that, the delegates draft provided that,


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


That was the suggestion of the delegates as Canada’s "rank and name"; and we may assume that all the delegates agree to it. Further, the draft of the law officers had provided


"Their shall be for the United Colony Two Houses of Parliament styled the Legislative Council and the House of Commons"


whereas the delegates draft provided that


"From and after the Union, there shall be within and for the Kingdom of Canada, one General Parliament, which shall be composed of the Queen, an Upper Chamber, to be called the Senate and the House of Commons"


The law officers had provided for the constitution an Executive Council. The draft of the delegates added the words:


"which shall be called the Privy Council of Canada"


Delegates Third Draft.—Between the 2nd and the 9th of February, the delegates prepared their third draft bill. In it they made further use of the phrase "the Kingdom of Canada." For example:


"The word 'Parliament' shall mean the Legislature or Parliament of the Kingdom of Canada"


The following clauses were new:


"The word 'Kingdom' shall mean and comprehend the United Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. The word 'Privy Council' shall such persons as may from time to time be appointed by the Governor-General, and sworn to aid and advise the Government of the Kingdom. The word 'Canada' (when not applied to the Province of Canada) shall mean the Kingdom of Canada thereby constituted."


Joint Draft.—The next draft (9th February) is the joint product of the delegates and the English law officers. Prior to its preparation Sir John had made his last fight for the elevation of this country out of colonialism, and had fallen back beaten. The words


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


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


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


Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft. The recital was made to declare which that was untrue—


"WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom"


[End of this section of the cited text from the J.S. Ewart work].

ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Central Arguement of this Whole Issue

If ones looks up the Quebec Resolutions 1864 (there are 72), and the following London Resolutions 1866 (there are 69), one will note,

Rank and Name.--71.That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces.

then,

Rank and Name.--68. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Confederation.

Federated Provinces of Canada (1864), then the Confederation of Canada (1866).


The words

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

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

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

Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.


In the last draft of the delegates ,

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

whereas in the final draft entered in the constitution (i.e., the British North America Act 1867),

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


So the question is

does Name = long form offical name = [the Kingdom of Canada], in the last delegate draft,

whereas,

does Name = short form name = [Canada], which entered the British North America Act 1867.


If so, then "Canada" has no long form offical name, but only a short form name. Such a conclusion seems to be what happenned. The thing is, if this country was assigned in 1867, only the short form name of Canada, that would of been a complete break with the tradition of the time (the late 1800s). Equally, if this country was in fact assigned in 1867, the long form offical name of Canada, that again would of been a complete break with tradition of the time (the late 1800s).


Finally, an explicit solution to the above ambiguity would of been this text, proposed below,

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

in other words,

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

If only this proposed text had been put into the British North America Act, 1867, then this whole ambiguity would of been obliterated. Alas.


ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


"that would of been a complete break with the tradition of the times"

Canada was the first British colony to achieve any sort of independence outside of war - you would have a point if Austalia, New Zealand or even one other colony had gone first but as Canada was the first there simply was not a tradition to follow. Homey 16:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the British North America Act 1867 defines "the short form" name of Canada only

After "sleeping on it", I have come to the opinion that it would seem that the British North America Act 1867 defines "the short form" name of "Canada" only, for this country.


The words

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

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

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

Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.

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

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


I am forced to conclude that

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


Dammit. (Sad-faced Don)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed that you are able to admit you were wrong. Still, you've uncovered some interesting evidence about Canada's proposed title of Kingdom and how it was lost.Homey 16:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don, thank you for continuning your research and analysis even though it led you to a conclusion that you were not seeking. I understand that this was not easy for you. Go out and have a nice walk to cheer yourself up. The sun is shining. Please don't be sad. Ground Zero | t 18:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very nicely done, Don. Good work.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's name: sources — the revenge

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

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

There you go! I hope this sheds some more authoritative light on this topic. Thanks for your patience. E Pluribus Anthony 17:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This contradicts what Robert Martin, professor of Law at the University of Western Ontario, has to say on the topic. Who is J. E. Hodgetts? Is he an authority, or just a writer? Ground Zero | t 18:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know! That's why I thought it interesting in an odd sorta way. I'm unsure if he is an authority; he is listed as a Professor Emeritus (of Political Science) at U. of T. and contributed a dozen entries in the Companion. E Pluribus Anthony 18:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Based on recent citations/information and ongoing, tumultuous (but no less fruitful!) discussions, I -- but not alone -- have made some editions to the section/article. I think it's accurate, summative, and reasonable. Whatyathink? If agreed, I think that's it on this topic for now. As well, I'll remove the 'clean-up' moniker atop the page. Thanks to you all for your diligence and co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 05:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, one more question: should any statement be included to indicate what, if any, official longform name there is, if applicable? Canada? Dominion of Canada? Undefined? Both? Neither? One sentence would suffice, if at all.) E Pluribus Anthony 11:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This term, "styled as"' has been batted around alot. It is "high sounding Constitutional Legalise, but in plain English,... "Styled As" in laymans terms means "un-offical Longform Name".
Why am I making this distinction? Well, because it needs emphasis the maintain clarity in is (tempestous but yes fruitfull) Constitutional Debate. Constitutional Protocol usually involves a clear an explicit declaration (i.e., definiton) of the longform name of the country in question. With this clear declaration of the long form name, this thereafter is refered to as the long form offical name, or the offical long form name, or the offical name of the country. However, if one uses the third term, (i.e., the offical name), this abbrevation is dangerous, as it can introduce ambiguity into the document, or written conservation, or spoken conversation. What does the offical name mean? It assumes a long form offical name as been adopted in Statute (i.e., the Legislative Act of Parliament.).
Hi! Thanks for the information and your summary. I fielded the question to solicit opinion about whether any other statements are needed, if at all. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 18:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello E. Pluribus Anthony,
It is nice to hear from you indeed. Thanks a million for the above reference. I appreciate it alot. It adds alot to this debate indeed.
As per Section II.-Union, Clause 3., and Section II.-Union, Clause 4. of the British North America Act 1867 (and the relavent contents of which still appear in the Canada Act 1982), the short form name of "Canada" is offically adopted, and the (Feudal Rank) the title of this country is explicitly defined as a Dominion. That is what this country was founded as, and that is what it remain today ... A DOMINION.
The Constitution Act, 1867
(THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867)
30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3.
Consolidated with amendments]
An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith.
(29th March, 1867.)
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html
II. UNION.
3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after 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),
Now remembering that,
"shall form and be [One Dominion] under the Name of [Canada], and on and after the Day those three Provinces shall form and be [One Dominion] under that Name accordingly"
the final Draft put in BNA Act (Feb. 9, 1867): Name = short form name
Rank = [One Dominion], and Name = [Canada].
ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; thanks again for the information and input! I think that's it for now. Over and out! :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello E. Pluribus Anthony,
LOL!!!!! Don't worry I am not going to start up "my cantankerous philibuster" again.
Basically, the common Constitutional Protocol is to clearly define a long form offical name in the country's constitution. After that short form names are "un-offically" derived form the long form offical name.
For the sake of arguement suppose this country had explicitly adopted the Dominion of Canada in the BNA Act 1867. On comparasion with the USA, Canada would of looked like this below,
USA
long form offical name: the United States of America,
short form name: America, the United States, the States.
Canada
long form offical name: the Dominion of Canada,
short form name: Canada, the Dominion.
but we didnt' so we are stuck with this,
long form offical name:
short form name: Canada.
which constitutes a complete break with tradition. Something happenned on February 9th, 1867 in the damn Colonial Office, that screwed this up.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand fully; thanks. Au revoir! E Pluribus Anthony 19:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


A Couple of Problems

Well ... we have 3 Problems.

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

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

Problem 3. The Statute of Westminster (1931).

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


So either

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

or

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


How to we square this one?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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


George R.I.


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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



Problem 3. The Statute of Westminster (1931).


The Statute of Westminster 1931

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

Modern History Sourcebook:

Statute of Westminster 1931

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


[Preamble]

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


Section 9 [Saving with respect to States of Australia]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


Source: 22 George V, Chapter 4; 11th December, 1931 }


ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Realme (Part 1.)

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


"Realme" is a word from Old French. It became apart of the English Language after the Norman-French conquest after the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The Norman-French ruled the Kingdom of England, and the language of the court was French. The Throne of the UK has "Dieu et Mon Droit on it because the French ruled England. By 1362, the English Language was made the offical langauge of England. Therefore, it took 294 years of intermarriage between the Norman-French ruling class, and their Germanic subjects for the English Language to develop.
So how is the word "Realme" (in English "Realm") a so-called loan-word? And where did this odd idea of a loan-word come from?


ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
both Dominion and realme are loan word for the simple reason that they are not used in french. Neither appear in any french dictionary unless as something along the lines of "Dominion: enlgish loan-word formaly used to designate some entities within the british empire".
Incidently, "Old french" is not the same as modern french in the same way that "anglo-saxon" is different from modern english. Try and find either of these words (either online or elsewhere) and you will see my point.--Marc pasquin 14:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well look. Before 1789 le Royaume de la France existed. They would of used the word. Does this satisfy you?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Supposition? Le Royaume de la France using the word realme in one of its documents? Of course it would of done that. You people are way to literal.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


"The Kingdom of England" versus just "England"

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon


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


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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Ross Burgess, thank you for your correction. I was wrong about the Kingdom of England. I apologise for that. I was wrong. I would like to ask though when was the Kingdom of England (not just England) founded?. Next up, William the Conqueror was the Duke of the Duchy of Normandy. Please look at this Wikipedia entry (Duchy of Normandy). Thanks again, and take care eh,
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Oh God! Here we go again!

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

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


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Kingdom of England
Main article: History of England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England
The Kingdom of England has no specific founding date. The Kingdom can trace its origins to the Heptarchy, the rule of what would later become England by seven minor Kingdoms: East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, and Wessex.

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


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


ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Realme (Part 2.)

The Arms of France

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


Why would the Norman-French exclude those terms? Why?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

What about Marc Pasquin's supposition that "Realme" is not a French word?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:
1 - If you look at a french-english dictionary, you will see the english word "realm" translated as "royaume" .
2 - I'm a native french speaker, well read, college educated and have never encountered that word in a french text.
3 - What is often refered to as "norman-french" is not the same as modern french.
4 - (And much more importantly) I have not been able to find the word "realme" in any french dictionaries either online or at home.
is this valid to you ?--Marc pasquin 00:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Marc,

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

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


ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

Here is a place to start looking,

http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/France/


ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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


French Revolution Reference

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


This is a short accounting of what the Proclamations of the National Assembly did to the French Army, during the French Revolution. As well, it is possible that the "Royalist Words" in French were obliterated from the French Dictionaries, following the French Revolution.


ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

ISBN: 0-8129-2830-2


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

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


Go to your local Chapters, and read it.


ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


AVD, languages change. There are perfectly good Middle English words that we either no longer use or whose meanings have completely changed. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the possibility that the word "realme", though imported into English, did not surive the transition from Norman French to its successor?
You have to learn to distinguish between supposition and fact. Just becuase it would "make sense" for the word "realme" to have survived the transition from Norman French doesn't mean it did and just because you suppose that the word was retained until 1789 doesn't mean it was. You may have a theory but in the absence of hard evidence (meaning actual documents using the word "realme" or an entry in a French dictionary stating that it was used as recently as the eighteenth century) your theory is unproven and thus "original research". Homey 02:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Homeontherange, I know the difference between supposition and fact. As well, I know what original research on Wikipedia is. Please quit lecturing me on these points. I find your lectures annoying and condescending.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


Excuse me? You just can not leave well enough alone. You've got mental problems. Big ones.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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


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

feudal rank issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am just sick of being harrassed by you. Back off a little.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

After the Conquest

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

Hi; agreed! It reads like a brief opinion that is unco-ordinated with the rest of the article. I'll revert, if there are no/few objections ... Perhaps, though, something should be included about canadien(ne), since those were/are used variably to describe French Canadians? E Pluribus Anthony 23:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the only thing worth noting in that regard is the evolution of the meaning of both Canada and Canadien/Canadian: Before the conquest it was limited to a small area and the gentille refered to localy born french subjects werehas after the conquest (and especialy after the creation of upper canada) the terms slowly began to acqueried other meanings.
As to the impact of the quiet revolution on francophones outside quebec, it did have a certain impact: Before, francophones fell broadly into either canadien/french-canadian (those whose ancestor came from the french province of Canada) or acadian (descendants of those who originaly inhabited acadie-plaisance). post quiet revolution, most francophone communities started instead to define themselves along modern provincial lines --Marc pasquin 02:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


After the Conquest (Contribution by: 80.212.80.213 )
After the conquest of the French colony of New France in 1759-63, the colony came to be known as Canada, and its French speaking inhabitants were referred to as Canadians. The English speaking would simply be called "les anglais" - The English. French speaking Canadians continued to call themselves Canadians until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960'ies. when the term "québecois" was introduced.


First off, this is not signed. Upon using the IP Address locator (free on-line),
http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation
one gets: 80.212.80.213 Oslo, Norway, Correlation: 84%


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


North America Colonies (until 1783)
http://www.regiments.org/nations/namerica/namerica.htm
This link provides a very informative list of the history of the British North American Colonies (until 1783).
Additionally, from 1763-1783, there were 19 British American Colonies. The former territories of New France were partitioned into (i). the Colony of Quebec, (ii). the Northwest Territory (the Ohio Valley), and (iii). the Crown Lands (Indian Country).
British American Colonies 1763-1775
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/british_colonies_1763-76.jpg
From North to South, the 19 Colonies are listing below, (Note: The 6 Loyalist Colonies of the 19 Colonies of are denoted in red). (Please click on above section).
My points are,
(i). I do not summarily delete peoples contributions,
(ii). This may have some relavence to Canada's name,
(iii). This contribution should be signed by a Wikipedia member,
(iv). This contribution implies the term "Canada", was used with regards to "British Occupied New France" (1759-1763)".
(v). This contribution implies the term "Canadien/Canadien(ne)" (Canadian, in English) only applied to French Colonists of the area. It ignores the English-Speaking Colonists in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec (1763-1791), Upper Canada, (1791-1841), and finally the United Province of Canada (1841-1867).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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


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

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

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 14:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MarcP, AVD, HBA: hello! I agree with everything cited here; this notion – usage of canadien(ne) – should be expanded upon briefly in the article. It would be nice if the original contributor provided more authoritative information, phrased it differently, or contributed more (not to mention signing it!), but the original contribution should be changed somehow. Thoughts? Thanks!
PS: use of the sandbox is encouraged to proof contributions before committing them; god knows, though, that I don't always do this. :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Gradual Slur Theory: Realme to Royaume

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

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

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

(3). reiame (1200, French Literature)

(4). roiaume (1266, French literature)

(5). roiame(1524, French Literature)

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

(3). reiame (1200, French Literature)

(4). roiaume (1266, French literature)

(5). roiame(1524, French Literature)

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



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


ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


AVD, your habit of asking a question and then immediately asking "Well?" without giving the person a chance to respond is quite rude.
In any case, I don't see how the information you have above would change Marc's mind since it suggests the word "realme" hasn't been indigenous in French since the 13th century. Royaume may be descended from "realme" (though I think it's more likely related to the word "roi") but that doesn't change the fact that realme was reintroduced in the 19th century because of British influence. Homey 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Homeontherange,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per your question, no, you haven't proven it. All you have done is show an ethymological link between the english word "realm" and the french "royaume". Same goes for the words "candle" and french "chandelle". I could have saved you the time by pointing out the simple fact that both come from Latin roots (as do "dominion").
Your research has failed to found the word "realme" in a modern french text and, unless you have found it in a modern dictionary I haven't checked, this mean once more that if the words realme (or dominion) are used in a modern french text, they have been borrowed from the english.
Finaly, please do not presume as to my mind set, implying that my opinions are based on some sort of "french attitude" is not only simplistic but smack of bigotry. It might come as a terrible shock but some people might disagree with you for the simple reason that you are wrong.--Marc pasquin 20:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Marc,

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

203.164.53.214

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

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


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

Location: Sydney Australia (Correlation: 50%)

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

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

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

Are you asserting that l'ancienne francaise, is completely unrelated to la moderne francaise, well?


ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

Hello Marc,

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


Take care,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to Marc Pasquin

Marc Pasquin wrote,

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


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

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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Marc Pasquin wrote,

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


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

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

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


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


Yes, my theory could be complete bunk. I could be completely wrong. New France existed from 1604-1763 (i.e., about 159 years), and it was organised into l'Acadie, le Canada, l'Illinois, and la Louisane. New France's main population centres were Quebec City, Montreal, and New Orleans. There should be some surviving pre-1790 Revolution French Dictionaries around. Can you point me to any so I can examine them, Homeontherange?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


One place to start is here,


The French Royal Family: Titles and Customs

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

I have been looking for any Royal Proclamation of the Kingdom of France, the awarding of Family Coats-of-Arms, documents of the French Royal Court, but so far to no avail. Not much is on-line.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Marc Pasquin wrote,

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


(Reponse constantly deleted by HistoryBA).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Canada still a dominion?

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

The article says

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

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


Yes, Canada is a Dominion. The short form name "Canada" is defined in the British North America Act 1867, in two places,
(i). the Preamble of the BNA Act 1867, (non-legally binding),
(ii). the Section II-Union., and Clause 3, (legally binding Statutes).


ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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


The words

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

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

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

Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft.

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

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


I am forced to conclude that

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

To HistoryBA

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

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

Sorry. I wasn't being very clear. I meant that the French originally used the term "canadiens" to refer to the aboriginals. HistoryBA 01:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pretending I hold the truth here but this is new to me. Would you have a source? (if you do but don't remember off the top of your head, just saying "yes" is okay).--Marc pasquin 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a small edit to clarify. I am sure I read this in a book edited by Gilles Gougeon, something like "The History of Nationalism in Quebec." If you give me a few days, I'll will try to find a copy and will give you a citation. HistoryBA 01:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, no sweat.--Marc pasquin 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is, on page 4 of "A History of Quebec Nationalism": "When Cartier spoke of "canadiens" in 1535, he was referring to the Iroquois he had met there." I'll try to revise the article to specifically mention Cartier. HistoryBA 01:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That you mention Cartier, it make quite a lot of sense that he would be the one to have used the term that way since it would predate *any* french settlement. Thanks for that, live and learn.--Marc pasquin 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryBA: What is the beef?

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

What is your problem?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

Homeontherange, first off Wikipedia is not a Court of Law, so can the Lawyer-speak crap, ok. Everything for you is some damn legal arguement. For once just one, please do not take yourself so seriously. Next up, you would a made a shitty lawyer.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any legal language or "legal argument" in the pasage I wrote (unless you count the word "evidence"). Please specify, what legal argument am I using?Homey 17:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please consider withdrawing the previous comments, which hamper our efforts to foster a community spirit here. "We can't always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility." These words come from the official Wikipedia policy on civility. See Wikipedia:Civility. HistoryBA 14:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent editions ...

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

Thanks for your goodwill in this. I just "pissed off" ArmchairVexillologistDon, and would hate to annoy you on the same day, especially given your positive contributions to Wikipedia. HistoryBA 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I provided the information earlier because, as much as there has been argumentation and contributions on both sides and despite what might be apparent (i.e., the written texts), there is a body of historical and other information which might have supported a different perspective (i.e., unwritten conventions, prior/current usage, etc.) I was compelled to dig and to enhance this, and I think it's better, consequently.
And not to worry; no offence received. :) Onward ho! E Pluribus Anthony 01:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Facts of Wikipedia

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

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

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

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


Meanie, I concur with your opinion that the offical name of this country is the Dominion of Canada. Something happenned on February 9th, 1867, within the Colonial Office in London, UK. Somehow, ambiguous wording got entered into the British North America Act, 1867, specifically at Section II.-Union, Clause 3. Back in 1867, no one disputed that the Dominion of Canada was created in this Constitutional Document, but today the closet Republicans, and Revisionist Historians have seized upon this Constitutional Ambiguity, to argue for the banning of the term "the Dominion of Canada," from the Wikipedia website. Alas, nothing can be done about this, until the changing-of-the-guards of the "Society of Enlightened Idiots/Yes-men" occurs.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 03:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you, plese, to consider withdrawing the words "enlightened idiots/yes-men," which clearly run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. HistoryBA 14:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to clear up disputes with ArmchairVexillologistDon

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

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

HistoryBA 15:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have responded to you on my talkpage, but I will say the same here. This is a "talkpage", and not an article page. Article pages are expected to undergo vigorious "peer-review", as they are presented as fact. Talkpages are the place for discussing the contents of articles, and varying positions/opinions, on the subject at hand.
As per what I wrote above, I meant every word of it. I withdraw nothing. This is quite odd, you are asking me to withdraw my comments made in frustration for something that you summarily deleted, and were steadfast about obliterating? You have a strange sense of propriety, and consistency. I must say indeed.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryBA: This is getting ridiculous

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


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BNA_Act1867_FrenchPreamble_page4.gif

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


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BNA_Act1867_FrenchClause3_page_6.gif

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


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


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


ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your beef is with user:JimWae, not me. HistoryBA 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Name_of_Canada&oldid=24588407"