Talk:Canada Day/Archive 1

Info
Stephentaylor, you supplied that info in the summary. May you can give us an official page or news article online about it? (Add it to the article, like this:


 * == External links ==
 * * [http://URL Title]: brief desc

--Menchi 02:58 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here is a list of statitory holidays in Quebec from the website of the Labour Standards Commission. - Efghij

Noone talks about celebrating Canada Day on a Monday when its really a Sunday. --Canadianshoper 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Quebec
I'm not sure how it is in other provinces, but there doesn't seem to be much celebration here in Quebec, especially compared to Quebec National Holiday. Am I missing on it or is it truly not that widely celebrated. --A Sunshade Lust 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm in TO and I just came from spending afew hours down at the islands there, and it seems to be fairly majour, lot of people out, but most stores and malls are closed, I believe I heard something about Fines being handed out for being open to certain establishments, so only the Eaton Centre and malls that can afford it will be open. Saw some drunken people at 2pm, but you get that on any day for Wonderland, I know theres alot of fireworks stuff much later. Highlandlord 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There are huge celebrations in Gatineau and Montreal. I suspect the further North you go, the more separatists brainwashing there is. Therefor the less Canada day celebrations there may be. Try going to Montreal or Gatineau. Or if you really want to experience Canada Day, go to Ottawa. The party is unreal. --NationalCapital (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

July 4th
This page confirms suspicions that Canadians are too Liberal to have a sense of humor. Wahkeenah 06:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant no personal disrespect in removing the riddle. I just don't think it's relevant to Canada Day.  Thanks -- Samir   धर्म 04:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Canada Day. Independence Day. July 1 vs. July 4. Nope. No relevance. Wahkeenah 05:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote in question:
 * One time-honoured American schoolkids' riddle is, "Does Canada have a Fourth of July?" (Equating the expression "Fourth of July" with "Independence Day")
 * Such a comment smacks of anti-Canadianism.NorthernThunder (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is, "Yes, only it comes on the ''First!.
 * Sorry, but I fail to see how this is encyclopedic, referenced, or of any substantial relevance to Canada's national holiday -- Samir  धर्म 05:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, I wonder if America's Independence Day might've influenced the manner in which Dominion/Canada Day is celebrated (which seems reasonable, given the near-coincidence in dates) from the 1950s onwards. 68.32.48.42 04:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The guy thinks he's insulting Canada, I think - that Canada either doesn't have its own day or cannot tell what day it is. The way it is presented is not even a riddle. The riddle - published in many riddle books - is "Does England have a 4th of July?" and the answer is "Of course, what else would come after July the 3rd?" Absent any better justification for it, reinsertion should be considered vandalism. Btw, just about every country uses fireworks for their celebrations. In Canada, the July fireworks are mostly "sponsored". Individual fireworks are more common on Halloween than on July 1 --JimWae 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As a Canadian, I can tell you that the Halloween fireworks thing is completely bogus. There are more fireworks around July 1 and I rarely if ever have seen any around Halloween. And yes, the way it is celebrated here is largely influenced by how Americans celebrate July 4. The fact that someone listed CBC's 1958 broadcast as one of the reasons (?) for picking July 1 is embarrassing. JettaMann (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends where you are. As a kid growing up in Ontario in the 60s, the fireworks weekend was Victoria Day.  When we moved to British Columbia I was surprised to discover that out here people set off fireworks for Hallowe'en.   I wondered if it was perhaps a holdover from the celebrations of Guy Fawkes Day, a custom that would have come over with the large numbers of British immigrants who came to BC in the post-Confederation period.  Now municipalities are banning private sales of fireworks, so the individual celebrations are coming to an end, unfortunately. Corlyon (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in BC and people do buy fireworks for Hallowe'en, it's when individuals set them off, New Years and Canada Day are the municipal/city/corporate organised ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada Day, 2017
I nominated Canada Day, 2017 for deletion. There is a discussion here. --Paul E. Ester 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Birthday?
RE: The stuff (diatribe?) in the lede claiming it is somewhat inappropriate to call the day Canada's birthday
 * 1) does not belong in the lede
 * 2) is not entirely persuasive. Canada, as it is presently constituted, did originate July 1, 1867 - even if part of it had that same name as a "fetus" & is no longer a baby (what country 140 years old has not changed?)
 * --JimWae 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also: calling it a "kingdom" in an unqualified sense is contentious - it was never legally called a kingdom, though it was called (but never named) a dominion. (Just because 1 or 2 government publications use a word does not confer legal or otherwise official status on any terminolgy.) "Constitutional monarchy", though incomplete, is at least more apt (for 2 reasons [more complete & the "king" is female]). The lede needs to be the least contentious part of every article - since ledes do not easily allow the qualifications that sections do--JimWae 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The US has changed massively since their birthday too - not only did they not have a constitution when they started, but their first one (Articles of Confederation) were abandoned & the US completely reconstituted itself with a different form of govt in 1787-89 --JimWae 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger
Is it appropriate to say it is also called Dominion Day? I have proposed that the Canada section of Dominion Day be merged to this article. I do think the lede ought to mention the name it previously had --JimWae 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Dominion Day article mentions that the term has been used in New Zealand as well. Maybe leave that for the term in general, with a link to Canada Day.  (I have no idea how widespread "Dominion Day" is among New Zealanders.)  For this article, it's fine to include a mention of "Dominion Day"  but it doesn't necessarily belong in the lead, particularly since July 1st had been Canada Day for a quarter-century.  —OtherDave 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it not false to say it is "also called" Dominion Day? Also, I have heard only a few people call it "the First of July" - a poor choice in my estimation, making it seem a pale imitation of the 4th. The only top hits on google for "first of July" are wikipedia --JimWae 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly remove the reference to "First of July"; it's likely a colloquialism or neologism for which we should require a citation to include it here. As far as "Dominion Day" is concerned, we should refer to the fact that Canada Day was previously referred to in this fashion, but it has largely fallen out of favour to the preferred "Canada Day" (citation?); putting it in the "also called" section seems disingeneous, but we should recognize the heritage of the event in some way. Further, we should ensure that the use of the term dominion is consistent with the main article about Canada, and any of its sub-articles. Mind  matrix  15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The umpteen articles on the various forms of Remembrance Day, Armistice Day, Veteran's Day all mention former names in the lede --JimWae 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree with merger, article should examine each of the (former or present) Dominions, say if it observed a day by the name "Dominion Day", what it is now called, when the name changed, what legislation changed it. Can use the template:main to link to each one from.  In 1985, Canada passed the Holidays Act. R.S., c. H-7, s. 1. changing the name Canada Day.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I say merge the articles. Dominion Day article is relatively short and Canada Day article even mentions how it used to be called Dominion Day. Yoshi thomas (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Canada Day!
HAPPY CANADA DAY! Bosniak 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Canada did not become "a kingdom in its own right" in 1867
The Heritage document may be used as source for such a claim - but the article cannot state as fact that Canada became a kingdom in its own right in 1867. It is in no way clear, and in my estimation wishful thinking, that Canada became an equal of the United Kingdom in 1867. With the acts of Union neither the Kingdom of Scotland nor the Kingdom of Ireland were kingdoms in their own right. The title for Queen Victoria states clearly that Canada is a dominion of the United Kingdom of Great Britian - not a kingdom in its own right. Heritage is just blowing kisses. --JimWae 04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC) It is presumptuous to think the crown disclosed every reason why they chose dominion rather than kingdom. Neither Scotland nor Ireland were kingdoms in their own right anymore - and to use Kingdom of Canada could easily have suggested their being a lower status --JimWae 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Her Imperial Majesty Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Empress of its Colonial Empire, Empress of its Protectorate of India, Queen of its Dominions, Princess of the Principalities of Hanover, Brunswick, Saxe-Coburg, and Gotha, Duchess of the Duchies of Brunswick, Lüneburg, and Saxony, Sovereign of its Orders, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Defender of the Faith, by the Grace of God

Whereas the following can support tha claim that Canada is no longer a dominion at all, but rather a realm, as the crown would rarely bother to issue a proclamation repealing a title, prefering just to issue a new proclamation with a new title:
 * Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. --JimWae 05:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim, with all due respect, who are you to say that Heritage Canada is wrong, or "blowing kisses"? The document is an educational resource issued by the government; it isn't trivial.  Further, don't confuse the proper title "Kingdom of Canada" with the descriptor "kingdom of Canada" - the former, of course, is incorrect, the latter, however, is not.  Further still, I don't see any claim that Canada became an equal of the UK in 1867; a kingdom can be a subsidiary part of a larger imperial organization; regard the Holy Roman Empire. --G2bambino 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) It is my estimation they are blowing kisses - but that is beside the point. Wikipedia cannot take a non-legal document (not even a gov't "educational" pamphlet) as a plain statement of fact - only as a claimed fact. It seems to me you are reverting without properly considering what I have put in discussion to justify my changes. Canada was not a dominion of the British Empire - it was a dominion of the UK of Britain. It was not anything in its own right in 1867 - it was still possessed by its former colonial ruler. It was something between a colony & a self-governing country. Even if you disagree with that, it is a cogent interpretation with currency & some pamphlet by Heritage Canada saying otherwise does not make their interpretation something wikipedia can state as a flat fact --JimWae 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) We do not write "the USA as a Republic", nor "Spain as a Kingdom". We do not even write "the Republic of the United States". Please explain why you keep reverting to capitalizing "Canada as a Dominion" --JimWae 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Please count the number of clauses in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lede. It was better before you again reverted. There is no reason to discuss whether or not it truly is a birthday - there is no need for any further comment in the sentence calling it  a birthday. That sentence appears to me to be the result of trying to suggest something without overtly stating it, and of too-hasty reversion --JimWae 07:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, your estimation doesn't override a published source, and a government one at that (ie. not an organization with any pro or anti-monarchy agenda). Your estimation, further, is seemingly based on incorrect information: all the territories of the British Empire were dominions of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; thus, in 1867, the confederated colonies of British North America didn't alter in status as dominions of the Crown.  However, the British North America Act established a constitution in the new country called Canada that was "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom," meaning the country became a constitutional monarchy with a Westminster parlimentary democracy, albeit one still under the umbrella of the Parliament in London.  Hence, as a constitutional monarchy the country couldn't be anything other than a kingdom, and with its own constitution, one in its own right.
 * There's a difference between a "dominion" - a territory - and a "Dominion" - the specific term chosen for the non-UK self-governing territories of the Crown. Thus, in this case, Canada was always (and still is) a dominion of the Crown, but in 1867 became (and no longer is) a Dominion.
 * I don't see any discussion of a birthday, merely the facts that Canada Day is frequently dubbed "Canada's birthday," does not mark any particular point of independence, and recognises the confederation of three colonies into a country, all of which is both factual and relevant to the topic of the article. --G2bambino 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I asked you to count the clauses so you'd be sure to read the sentence - it is an atrocious run-on
 * 2) You have made no case to capitalize Dominion. We do not say "Elizabeth was crowned as Queen in 1952". We say "King Carlos was crowned in..." and Carlos was crowned King of Spain in..." but we say "Carlos was crowned as king in.." --JimWae 03:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Canada is now a monarchy in its own right, but in 1867 it was a monarchy because UKGB was one. If GB had decided in 1869 to become a republic, Canadians would have had no say in whether they remained a monarchy or not --JimWae 03:44, 5 July 2007
 * 4) Heritage is taking the present condition & extrapolating back in an over-simplification (something often done in the name of educating youg people). Instead of attempting a Straw man argument, please note I am saying Heritage is a source of a claim - and that claim cannot be stated as a flat fact --JimWae 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I see it was not all your doing. While this diff eliminated a redundancy created by a too-swift reversion, it created many problems which you edited on top of --JimWae 05:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) The mention of birthday is immediately followed by a statement of what the day is not (previously it more directly attacked the notion of birthday). There is more about what it is not & little or no mention that the Constitution that established Canada then is the same one (amended) that Canada uses now. The sentence then rambles on & on & on. --JimWae 05:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I noted that the sentence is a run-on, thanks very much. I just didn't have enough time to figure out something better.  Perhaps you could assist?  I assume it isn't my duty alone to edit this article.
 * Dominion is a proper noun in this case. Please understand the difference between generic "dominion" and specific "Dominion." The article Dominion explains it.
 * It either became or did not become a kingdom in it's own right. It did.  If the UK was a republic the sentence would read "Canada became a republic in its own right."
 * I made at least one of the edits to the paragraph in question that attempted to remove the inference that the "birthday" interpretation is wrong. I think it's less POV now, but, if it needs more finessing, what do you suggest? --G2bambino 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) a "proper noun" is the name of a particular person, place, or thing. I cannot think of how any word preceded by "a" could be a "particular". Must I cite style guides?  --JimWae 04:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A particular thing is what we're dealing with here: a Dominion, as in a self-governing territory of the British Crown outside of the UK itself. That's different to "a dominion," which is just the generic term for a territory or region under absolute ownership.  Canada was a dominion prior to 1867; after that year it continued to be so but also became a Dominion, however in the context of the sentence we're talking about the latter, not the former. --G2bambino 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether or not capitalizing dominion in BNA1867 indicates it is a proper noun:
 * "a" and "an" are indefinite articles
 * "the" is the definite article
 * proper nouns generally get introduced by the article "the"
 * Nouns which are always proper nouns can sometimes be introduced by an indefinite article ("a Sunday to remember")
 * Some nouns are sometimes proper and sometimes common. When these are meant to be used as proper nouns, they are identified as such by being introduced by "the" or by putting them in quotes --JimWae 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC) --JimWae 09:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "king" is a title - but in current English usage, "king" does NOT get capitalized when we say "Carlos is king" - even though that is his specific title --JimWae 09:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC). We do not write "Carlos is a King". Instead of using an indefinite article with a word that can be either capitalized or not, putting quotes around "Dominion" will make it clearer that it is not a wiki-error --JimWae 10:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Canada was one of "the Dominions." As such, it was a Dominion.  Currently it's one of the Commonwealth Realms; are you saying one would describe Canada as a "commonwealth realm."? --G2bambino 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To summarize JimWae's point, it is revisionist history to assert that Canada became a Kingdom in its own right. The words from the official document state:
 * "federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".

...and I don't see how anyone can misinterpret the meaning of "Dominion UNDER" (emphasis added).--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources would prove it not to be revisionist at all. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is misleading to say Canada became a kingdom in its own right in 1867. UK refused to grant the requested "kingdom" title & used "dominion" instead. The sources are all taken one from another & they are all engaged in blowing kisses. Now blowing kisses is acceptable on national holidays & when furthering political agendas, but in encyclopedias they are only sources for claims & do not establish such claims as unqualified facts--JimWae (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's merely your opinion, which has no real bearing on how this encyclopaedia is written. Wikipedia relies on sources, and the fact that Canada became a kingdom in its own right in 1867 is sourced. Your interpretation is not. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The relationship of Canadians to the crown did not change in 1867. There were 3 colonies on June 30, and on July 1 three colonies became one colony that had a new "title" attached to it. The main event was the creation of a single responsible government where previously there had been 3. The relationship of the inhabitants to the crown did not change - except that there was a new (federal) level of gov't between the people & the crown. It is misleading & uninformative simplification to state as a blanket fact that Canada became a kingdom in 1867. Better language is available than what appears in celebratory pamphlets. --JimWae (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What you call celebratory pamphlets most others would call information sources (plus, since when was the Buckingham Palace website or a 64 page book considered a celebratory pamphlet?). Nothing wrong with adding explanatory detail, of course; but I think that's been sufficiently done already, what with the information about the British parliament's remaining role and all that. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * None of those cited references state that Canada became a Kingdom in its own right on July 1st, 1867, regardless of what may or may not have happened after that date. (Or if any of those references do state that explicitly, then I'd appreciate it if anyone would provide a pointer for me.) And the exact words from the document being celebrated were quoted directly. Yet you choose to ignore the source in favor of questionable interpretations of references to that source. An accurate encyclopedia requires that reason overrides passion.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Three of the sources cited state Canada became a kingdom in its own right on 1 July 1867, one says it is now a kingdom:
 * "Canada has always been a monarchy... a kingdom in her own right since 1867."
 * "Canada has long been a monarchy... a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward."
 * "Canada has long been a monarchy... a kingdom in her own right from Confederation onward."
 * "Canada has been a monarchy for centuries... now as a kingdom in her own right."
 * Granted, the last one doesn't mention Confederation specifically, but what other event could've taken place between being a monarchy under the British Crown in the 19th century and now at which point Canada became a kingdom in her own right? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the info I had missed.
 * Now even with that, I still don't see how any of those official references can be argued to override what the source document clearly states.
 * I hope you are open to the notion that even governments are susceptible to engaging in revisionist history. Or perhaps more appropriately, especially governments!--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Who claimed anything overrode anything else? The sources aren't even contradictory. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Newsflash...
 * The words "federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" describe a situation where Canada is dominated by the UK. That is what status of Dominion means. It does not confer any notion of equal status. The source document clearly states that Canada is being created underneath the UK crown. And even today, on the infrequent occasions where the queen visits Canada, her official title cites the country of the UK prior to the mention of Canada. This indicates that Canada's own head of state does not give the country equal status to the UK, where she lives full time.
 * Say that today you were to create anew a brand new country out of virgin land (for some reason undiscovered until 2010. You create a Kingdom where that monarch lives full-time in another Kingdom, where there are many signs that this new Kingdom is not the top priority for loyalty of this monarch. Even in THIS hypothetical case, I'd say that you'd be hard pressed to claim that this new Kingdom is a "Kingdom in its own right". It would be clear to me that the new Kingdom is bound to a greater Kingdom.
 * In Canada's case, that greater Kingdom is the UK. Now if someday Canada should choose to sever ties to the UK monarch, or convice her to move to Canada and make Canada her top priority, then I would agree that Canada has become a kingdom in its own right.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Without getting into your total misinterpretation of Canada's present state vis-à-vis the United Kingdom and the idea of personal union, nowhere in the article is it claimed that in 1867 Canada gained equal status to anything. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you reconsider the power contained in the words, "own right". This means that you have rights that are separate. Whatever you make of the truth of that supposition today, it certainly was not an accurate description of the situation in 1867, when even the UK Parliament had heavy authority over Canada.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then, by all means, petition the Department of Canadian Heritage and Buckingham Palace to convince them they're in error. Until then, the sources stand as they do. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You've made it clear that you're not open to the notion that governments engage in revisionist history. As for your view that Buckingham Palace supports the article in its present form, the one reference (out of the four) that avoids identifying 1867 as the point of establishing Canada in its own right, is the one reference that comes from outside of Canada's borders.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not up to us to declare sources as right or wrong; we can only state what they state. As I pointed out already, there isn't even, in this case, any contradiction between sources. You've tried to create one by giving the words "own right" your own unique interpretation, but that's a fabrication, and a not terribly sound one, at that. "Became a kingdom in its own right" does not, as you suggest, imply that Canada gained some equal status with Britain; a country can be a kingdom in its own right under a larger imperial body. I already brought up the example of the Holy Roman Empire above. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But it is up to us to identify logical inconsistencies. The very name of the act was the "BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT". It was not 'a new kingdom within the United Kingdom act'. It was not the 'Canada Act'. "British" meant 'we still own you'.
 * The Holy Roman Empire falls short because that is an example of separate (in their own right) kingdoms that have been united under one emperor. If Britain had one ruler and Canada had a different ruler united under one crown, then there might be a valid point. In reading the original 1867 document, I consider it pivotal to note that the monarch is still referred to as being "...of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". She was not called "the Queen of Canada".
 * That act did not create a new country. It simply reorganized British Territory in North America (hence the title). Only much later did the Canadian government go back and single that out as the formation of a new country in revisionist style, going so far as to change the name to the Constitution Act.


 * It is the duty of an encyclopedia to properly recognize revisionism and identify it as such. But if instead we present the historical record of this 1867 act as creating a new country separate from Britain, then this article will be doing a disservice to the cause of accurate history.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't up to you to dictate what is accurate and what is not. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree with that.
 * Another reference that is significant to this discussion:
 * Canada's founders, led by Sir John A. Macdonald wished their new nation to be called the Kingdom of Canada, to "fix the monarchical basis of the constitution." The governor general at the time, the Viscount Monck, supported the move to designate Canada a kingdom;  however, officials at the Colonial Office in London opposed this potentially "premature" and "pretentious" reference for a new country.
 * --Tdadamemd (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That speaks about the name of the country, not what form the new country took. It's the reason why Macdonald et all wanted the name Kingdom of Canada that's pertinent to this discussion. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will go so far as to make a prediction:
 * When Canada finally breaks ties with the British Monarchy, that date will become the new date when Canadian independence is celebrated. Because that will be the date when full independence (in its own right, if you will) will finally be achieved. I'll also predict that this will happen with the passing of Lizzy, because I don't picture Canada (or Australia or New Zealand, &others) accepting the successor to the British throne. But to this day I do not see Canada or the others to constitute kingdoms in their own right. They all still _depend_ on the one monarch who's primary loyalty lies in England.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, you must believe the United Kingdom isn't independent, either. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If two entities share the same Head of State, then it is impossible for them to be independent.
 * I'll try a new tack here...
 * Consider people in Nunavut who may desire independence from Canada. Does anyone today take Nunavut to be a nation in its own right? Clearly not. But say that over the decades into the 22nd century, the government of Nunavut becomes totally separated from the government of Canada. Say that Nunavut then annually celebrates April 1st as "Nunavut Day". And the Wikipedia article on Nunavut Day states that April 1, 1999 was the day that the separate country of Nunavut was created.
 * A minority opinion works to restore accuracy to that article by pointing out that indeed Nunavut was not established as a separate country in 1999. It was still very much a part of Canada, be it a territory rather than a province.
 * ...but that minority gets squashed by the patriotic fervor from Nunavut Wikipedians who revert all such edits, pointing out and heavily citing official Nunavut government references on how the 1999 act is the Nunavut Independence Act of 1999 (as it was renamed in 2067). The minority opinion gets silenced, and subsequent generations will learn that the country of Nunavut was born in 1999.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is purely academic and of no realtion to the article, but when a country can do as it chooses when it chooses to do so, it is independent. What the United Kingdom does has no bearing on Canada and vice versa. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Independent like issuing its own passports which happened in... --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already expressed that it is impossible to be independent if you have the same person as your Head of State. The Queen happens to also share the role of Commander in Chief. I hope this elucidates how the UK and Canada are not independent. If Canada were to attack London, we can expect that the Queen would immediately order all troops of the _Royal_ Canadian military to cease and desist. And they would all be obligated to do so, because they've sworn their allegiance to the person who happens to be the Commander in Chief of the UK. My understanding is that it is the same crown on the insignias of both countries' militaries.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bizarre and baseless speculation. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the most blatant example of the conflict of interest that exists between Canada and the UK to this very day.
 * If you'd prefer to avoid hypotheticals, we can go back to the actual authority that was established by the 1867 act: The Queen maintained Executive authority over Canada. Her representative was required for executing any legislation that came out of Parliament. And the Queen was given two years to overturn anything that her representative signed off on that she didn't like (for any reason at all!).
 * So how can this in any way be viewed as having "no bearing" between the two entities? It is easy to see acts from Canadian Parliament getting shot down by the GG. And if for whatever reason the GG signed off on anything that the Queen saw as harmful to the UK (regardless of how much it may benefit Canada) it is easy to see her overturning that. I thoroughly expect that a close examination of Canadian legislation will find many such examples. Or examples of legislation that Parliament didn't bother to push, because they knew it would get shot down by the UK-friendly Executive.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is no longer 1867. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's political hyperbole that misrepresents actual Canadian history. --JimWae (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no misrepresentation at all. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, so please forgive any departure from them by posting this information here at the top of the "talk" section. That being said, the below argument attempts to arrive at a definite answer to "when did Canada become a kingdom / realm" when there is none. There was an evolution of sovereignty that concluded with the Constitution Act, 1982. It is certainly not the case that Canada became a "kingdom" on July 1, 1867. When the BNA Act, 1867 was passed, and Canada became a Dominion in 1867, the UK controlled the foreign affairs of Canada, and the Colonial Laws Invalidity Act invalidated any Canadian legislation that was, in the opinion of the British Privy Council, in conflict with British Imperial legislation. The earliest date that Canada could be said to be a kingdom is with the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which repealed the Colonial Laws Invalidity Act and introduced the requirement of consent of the dominions to the accession of the monarch. I think the best thing to do is not use the word kingdom at all. See McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 578 at paras. 33 - 49 for authoritative, judicial support of the above. Handouts from Heritage Canada are definitely not authoritative of anything. 108.162.148.182 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)ts275 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.148.182 (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the bottom, because that's how it's done.
 * I have no further comment, but it is consensus that we use "kingdom". Until that changes, and you have some valid points to that end, it should remain that way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Moving Day in the see also section
Moving Day in QC has little to do with Canada Day except that it is July 1 and people get July 1 off. There is no comparison with Memorial Day in NL, which is a holiday in that province. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted in cases where July 1 does not fall on a working day
Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada), formerly Dominion Day, is Canada's national day, a federal statutory holiday, celebrated on July 1 annually by all governments and most businesses across the country; the date, though, is adjusted in cases where July 1 does not fall on a working day.

It's only the day off work that's adjusted... if Canada Day falls on a Saturday, Monday-Friday workers get the Monday off instead. This long sentence seems to imply that date on which Canada Day falls varies from year to year when in fact it's always celebrated on July 1st. In the same respect, it also seems to imply that it's only celebrated by governments and businesses but it's also referring to the day off work as it's celebrated by people (seeing as how the government & businesses are closed).

99.245.224.80 (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Canada Day
Bonne fête du Canada! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.205 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

merci beaucoup! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.58.154 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian celebrations of Canada Day
It's true that the Victoria Cross bar in North Sydney has been used on 1 July in recent years by Sydney-based Canadians as a venue to celebrate Canada Day. However the bar was demolished several months ago. There were no celebrations there on 1 July 2008. 203.31.52.131 (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) rithom

Memorial Day in Newfoundland
I am sure this discussion has come up, I cant seem to find record of it, but why was Memorial Day in Newfoundland meged with Canada Day. The simple fact that they are both on July 1 would not seem to be sufficient reason. Can anyone offer insight? Labattblueboy (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * scratch comment, it was simply Newfoundland and Labrador Memorial Day is redirected and should go to Memorial Day (Newfoundland and Labrador). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labattblueboy (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the Oath day an official declared holiday in canada?
Tomorrow is my canadian citizenship Oath day. I would like to know if in toronto it is a delared holiday or number of hours that we can get paid off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.76.42 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Canada's Birthday?
Canada only became an independent country in 1962 so why call it its birthday? or is it like the border line of the dominion that was called canada or something? ChesterTheWorm (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm
 * I believe you are trolling. Nonetheless, Canadian Confederation was a major achievement and marks the birth of the new nation uniting the British North American colonies. And your 1962 date is meaningless. Perhaps you meant 1982?  Double Blue  (Talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe by calling me names you are trolling. Nonetheless, i think it is 1982 not 1962 which is the time canada became a nation thus it is it's birthday ChesterTheWorm (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm


 * Is that your personal opinion, which is worth as much as any opinion, or do you have a citation that suggests Canada has only been a nation for the past 26 years? fishhead64 (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1982=patriation of the Constitution. But we date our country to 1867 (confederation). Canada became a nation gradually and incrementally. 1867 is the recognised starting date. 82 was important, but no one would argue we became a nation then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No clear awnser to the actual age of Canada by Canadians?
Sum say: 1962 1982 1602 1867 Never a clear awnser yet this wiki posts makes the point it happened in 1982 yet it corrects it too LoL wtf? ChesterTheWorm (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm
 * You said 1962, nobody else did. Confederation happened on July 1, 1867.  That is quite simple.  What 'post' are you referring to that 'makes it clear it was in 1982'? Please stop trolling.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey i aint trolling it says in the cammemoration section "the British Parliament at first kept limited rights of political control over the new country, which were shed by stages over the years until the last vestiges were ended in 1982, when the Constitution Act patriated the Canadian constitution" Obviously thas when it became independent thus Canada is only 27 years old. ChesterTheWorm (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC) ChesterheWorm
 * Well how old is 'Italy'? or 'England'? or 'France'?  Some nations evolve over time from one thing to another.  Canada as part of New France could be said to go back to 1608 and the founding of Quebec City by Champlain.  The 'Province of Canada', as a British colony, was formally established in 1791, replacing the British Province of Quebec.  However, Canadians have long considered 1867 to mark a significant step from colonial status towards independence.  On July 1, 1867 a new 'federal' government came into being which gave significant authority to a central Parliament in Ottawa. The creation of the dominion of Canada in 1867 did not mark complete independence from the U.K., but brought 3 colonies together into a new political structure, giving us a Constitution that  forms the basis of our present federation, including the establishment of the federal parliament, the Supreme Court and the all-important distribution of powers.  In 1933 the Statute of Westminster gave Canada (and the other 'dominions') autonomy in international affairs.  1982 marks the repatriation of the Constitution.  Another important date.  Most Canadians, I would guess, date modern 'Canada' from 1867, as evidenced by the massive centennial celebrations in 1967.  The fact that the U.S. can date its age from July 4, 1776 but Canada can't do precisely the same with a fixed date is an example of how the 2 countries took very different paths toward statehood. Corlyon (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent external links
User Asiantractor has added a spam link to this page and a couple of others, which I have reverted. Please keep an eye out, I have tried warning this user on his or her talk page, but the user does not seem to understand the external link policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Date Format
When this article was begun in 2001 it used MDY format. That was the format used for years until 2009-Jul-01. The first attempt at conversion to DMY was 2005-Oct-10, but was reverted, as were all subsequent changes. Wikipolicy is not to change format unless a new consensus develops for a change. Silence is not a new consensus. See this --JimWae (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea, sod the D M Y format; don't know why our banks have moved to it. –xenotalk 20:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing about the (European) DMY format that is special to Canada. (Btw, Nearly every Canadian newspaper uses MDY.) The format used by Canadian gov't offices is YYYY-MM-DD and YYYY-MMM-DD, but unfortunately wikipedia sanctions neither of those. Canadian banks recently insisted that the format on cheques be specified as one of THREE: DD-MM-YYYY, MM-DD-YYYY, or YYYY-MM-DD --JimWae (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:DATE, either DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY are acceptable for Canadian articles. From my editing experience, it seems the former is more commonly employed; in fact, WP:DATE also says MM-DD-YYYY is rather unique to the US. I changed the date format as part of a general overhaul of the article. At the time, there were no objections raised by the edits I was making; as nobody invoked the WP:BRD cycle, everything seemed fine. Nearly six months has passed since then, with no objections raised; per WP:CON, silence can indeed be taken as consensus. What reason is there to return to the equally acceptable but more US-oriented format? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:DATE
 * "In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic" --JimWae (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the early stages of writing an article, yes. This article is long past that point. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:DATE
 * "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." --JimWae (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

None of your edit summaries ever mentioned a change in date format, and there was no other notice of the change. In the midst of all the other changes on July 1, there was no notice given of what you were doing. The format the article first used & used consistently for nearly 9 years is the one that has the presumption unless you now develop an explicit consensus otherwise. We need to follow policy to prevent endless edit-warring. If you want to pick apart exact wordings, WP:CON says "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community" and "Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus UNTIL someone actually challenges them". Also see WP:Silence says "silence is the weakest form of consensus". Summarized: there is no longer even a weak "consensus" for your change. --JimWae (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I most certainly did mark in my edit summary that I had changed the date format; see my summary at 14:55, 1 July 2009. If a consensus arises that says to put it back, so be it. But, as I see it, the six month long silence says the DD-MM-YYYY format is fine by the community. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "(general fmt of refs, dates, & imgs)". OK, you indicated something about "fmt... dates" - but nothing specific about what you were doing. That was not sufficient notice to be "adequate exposure". Every relevant policy favors the original format & discourages changing. The presumption now is to return to MDY - unless you can point to a policy otherwise or establish a new EXPLICIT consensus. (Btw, Every newspaper & flyer that comes into my house uses MDY.) --JimWae (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should maintain consistency among Canadian articles, I see Canada is using M D Y so I would suggest using the same here. –xenotalk 22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed many others using DD-MM-YYYY; which is precisely why I changed the dates here in the first place. I'm really starting to wonder, though, why this is suddenly, after all this time, being turned into such a contentious issue; it wasn't six months ago. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is perhaps something that should be resolved centrally, and the best place to do so would probably be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) with a note at WT:CANADA requesting input. –xenotalk 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By resolving this centrally, do you mean imposing a standard date format across all Canada-related articles? Or merely that the date "issue" at this article be decided centrally? If it's the latter, I'd rather not see something so minor demand more attention than it deserves; if JimWae could just explain why my change was so offensive, perhaps we could resolve the matter amongst ourselves. As I said, my experience has been that most Canada articles use the DD-MM-YYYY format; am I wrong? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The former. I think Canadian articles should be consistent, be it M D Y or the horrid D M Y. Even though I prefer M D Y if the consensus is to have D M Y then I will support that being written into the guideline and all Canadian articles falling in line. Having a mish-mash is not acceptable. –xenotalk 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly also support a consistently used format. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I could just as well ask what you find so offensive about MDY. It's not about finding something offensive. We all have our preferences (my highest preference is actually neither). We all have our preferences, but we cannot go around changing articles to our preferences. There is a decision procedure (per article) on what date format to use (first use) & if everyone were allowed to just change the format to their preference, there would be endless edit-wars. The decision procedure does not involve what impressions any of us have developed about "most Canada articles" or "what most Canadians use"--JimWae (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the third time (I think), I changed the date format so that it fell in line with what I've seen to be the most commonly used throughout Canada related articles. That's all; nothing to do with my preference, really. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  07:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But every relevant policy says leave the date format alone. --JimWae (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One rather ambiguous one says leave the format alone; whether that means in the early stages or forever is somewhat questionable. I just wanted to make things consistent; as xeno says, there should be one accepted practice, not two. That would clear up quite a lot of mess. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles). –xenotalk 15:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It means forever. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Still referred to as Dominion Day
Relating to this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada_Day&action=historysubmit&diff=354637406&oldid=354634462

I believe this is important to avoid confusion. MrTranscript (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides the point there's no source supporting the assertion, confusion over what? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Confusion over whether or not Canada Day is the same thing as Dominion Day. MrTranscript (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no Dominion Day for Canada Day to be the same thing as. So, your edit would actually cause confusion, not avoid it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't because I clear stated that it is 'sometimes referred to' Dominion Day, while being officially Canada Day. MrTranscript (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion about Dominion Day and The Dominion of Canada have been had numerous times on various WP pages. We're not going to include the statement unless you can find a reliable third-party source that supports the claim. Mind  matrix  15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Date format, again

 * 1) On 2009-07-01 a change was made to the date format in this article by User:Miesianiacal. Until that point it was in Month Day, Year format. The date change goes against Wikipedia policy as defined in at WP:MOSDATE.
 * 2) At least one effort was made to change it back and was reverted with the comment "There was no objection to dd-mm-yyyy format for months, silence=consensus. No need to split refs apart". It does not address the breech of policy.
 * 3) A lengthy debate occurred for similar reasons on Talk:Victoria Day which resulted in Miesianiacal reverting the change (and getting a barn star for keeping his word after annoying many editors for making the change in the first place).

I don't want a long debate I want it changed back as per Wikipedia policy. It should be changed within the week. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * as per the comment on User talk:Miesianiacal I have reverted the breach and will keep the article on my watch list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment not that this should affect the change of format, but can people please stop saying this is "policy"? MOSDATE is a style guideline, which (from Wikipedia's perspective) is quite different from a policy (per GUIDES). --Ckatz chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  07:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

new external links
I see that User:Patforg has added a few new external links. Since they're not commercial sites or groups, it's not SPAM. However, they're not encyclopedic and they are mostly just ads. So what do we do with them since I'm sure a lot of cities in Canada have events and sites or pages? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This could become a laundry list, and if they are serving ads mostly, they are not that useful. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But they're not serving-up a great deal of ads. Agree that it could become a link farm. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"last vestiges were surrendered"?
I have raised the point that this statement gives a misleading impression that Canada has broken all political ties to the UK. This is obviously not accurate in that the Queen of Canada lives in Buckingham Palace, and visits to Canada are infrequent. The proposed change is to explicitly state:


 * "...last ties to British Parliament were surrendered..."

This would bring the article in line with the current status of Canada, instead of implications toward a status that does not yet exist. The full quote in the current revision that I see to be misleading is:
 * Canada became a kingdom in its own right on that date, but the British Parliament kept limited rights of political control over the new country that were shed by stages over the years until the last vestiges were surrendered in 1982 when the Constitution Act patriated the Canadian constitution.

--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does the British parliament need to be mentioned twice? I doubt people will have forgotten what vestiges are being referred to after reading twenty words. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be awkward verbiage. Here's a revised proposal:


 * ...but limited rights of political control were kept over the new country that were shed by stages over the years until the last vestiges of control by the British Parliament were surrendered in 1982 when the Constitution Act patriated the Canadian constitution.


 * Or something to that effect.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Change "that were shed by stages" to "that were shed in stages"? I'm not certain but the preposition by just doesn't sound right. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Image caption
User:Freshacconci keeps removing the word "her" from the sentence "Queen Elizabeth II and her then-prime minister, Jean Chrétien, at the official Canada Day celebration in Ottawa, 1997," leaving the awkward, confusing, and grammatically incorrect caption "Queen Elizabeth II and then-prime minister, Jean Chrétien...," which reads as though Jean Chrétien was in 1997 both Queen Elizabeth II and prime minister. Even if the comma is removed and the sentence becomes "Queen Elizabeth II and then-prime minister Jean Chrétien...," one is left wondering who's prime minister Jean Chrétien is; the President of Iceland's? Freshacconci's reasoning for the deletion was something about non-Canadians being confused by an archaic arrangement, but it's unclear what exactly is meant by that. The original wording was understandable and accurate. Why was it changed? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the edit that made the change. I know "her" would make many Americans wonder just how intimate the relationship is. It's a Westminsterian colloquialism that many will have far more trouble interpreting than something like "Queen Elizabeth II is accompanied by then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien..."--JimWae (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First, thank you JimWae for clarifying my point. Second, I didn't "keep removing" the word "her", like I was sitting here all day undoing the same edit. I removed it twice. Once, with an explanation that it seems too archaic and confusing, and the second time because Miesianiacal's revert was basically unexplained. His latest revert says it's to distinguish who is who in the photo, because your average reader will surely believe that this is Queen Elizabeth. Anyway, it's not a big deal, but "her" prime minister sounds awkward and is a bit needlessly confusing, IMO.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is what I don't get: it's somehow less confusing to be more vague. It's not that one person needs to be distinguished from the other, the question is: Who's prime minister was Jean Chrétien, again? The caption doesn't say... Regardless, would something like
 * Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, and the then-Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, at the official Canada Day celebration in Ottawa, 1997
 * be satisfactory? At least it hints at the Queen and Chrétien being related in some way to one another as public figures of Canada. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. I do understand that the unknowing reader might not have a clue why these two people are featured in an article on Canada Day and some sort of explanation is in order. But the "her Prime Minister" wording, as correct as it may be, seems to suggest that he was the British PM (to an American, for example, who may only understand QE as the British monarch). Not that I'm expecting too many Americans to be reading an article on Canada Day....  freshacconci  talk talk  14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, well now I understand, and agree that the lack of a national qualifier could've led to confusion; EIIR does have more than 20 premiers. I was thrown by the "archaic" comment, as though saying "her prime minister" was somehow no longer accurate, the Prime Minister of Canada now at the top of the pyramid and ministering nobody.
 * If the above suggestion is fine, I'll insert it in a little bit; I have to run out for a while now. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While technically correct, it is archaic and confusing to some. It also appears as though this is becoming an edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what exactly is archaic and what edit war? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the sequence of edits: I made an edit, Miesianiacal reverted. I changed it back. Miesianiacal reverted, then self-reverted that. Hardly a war as we are now discussing suitable wording that makes everybody happy. We have opposing viewpoints but we are discussing some semantic differences on the talk page like adults. Wikipedia should be like this all the time.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The terminology "her prime minister" is archaic. The number of edits to the phrase over the past 48 hours makes it look a lot like an edit war. The discussion here is not an edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the image. This is becoming a stupid monarchist imposition on the article. The current caption is so pompous that it's a joke. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And here was I thinking you'd learned to be civil. Anyway, how has an image that's been in the article for over four years suddenly become a "monarchist imposition"? The "pompous" caption thing doesn't explain much, probably because what is and is not pompous is a matter of personal taste. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Civility? The statement is now absolutely correct but no one would ever say it. Certainly not an encyclopedia. She's Canada's Queen, but to say "Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, and the then-Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, at the official Canada Day celebration in Ottawa, 1997" is an awkward construct in common English. I think most Canadians would say "Jean Chrétien and Queen Elilizabeth II at the 1997 Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa." since he's on the left and we work left-to-right in English. But of course you're going to argue some minor point of protocol or something else that no one other than a monarchist toady would actually know or care about. And I have no intention of changing this maladroit phrase because you've fought hard to get it to this point and I don't think you're going to try to fix it. So just leave it and let someone else complain in a year's time. But don't say that no one complained about it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the consensus wording that Miesianiacal and Freshacconci developed. While I think Walter Görlitz has a point about the figures being identified left-to-right (we are not bound by royal protocol on Wikipedia), I would suggest that there are far more constructive ways for him to have raised the issue, and accordingly I am inclined to leave it as it is.  I think there was a good resolution to this issue.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree 100 percent. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Dominion Day in lede
Dominion Day is mentioned twice in the lede. I don't know that it should be mentioned at all and it should simply be left to the history section. Any objections to moving the unrepeated points to the history section, or at the very least, paring it back in the lede? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)