Talk:Durham Report

Lord Durham's Report
I am 50. I have always called this what I was taught to call it in school, Lord Durham's Report. That name is not mentioned even though it appears in the 1912 reference cited at the bottom of the page. Varlaam (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (Hogtown)


 * I've always heard it that way too; but it does say at the beginning of the article that it is also called the "Durham Report". Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not true. It only says in small letters that it is a redirect from the "Durham Report". I agree that the title should be changed to "The Durham Report". JoJaEpp (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It says that because you clicked on a link that redirected you here. But it also says "Durham Report" in bold letters in the first line of the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify use of "Canada"
Until I changed it just now, the "Enquiry" section read:


 * In Canada, he formed numerous committees consisting of essentially all the opponents of the Patriotes and made many personal observations of life in the colonies. He also visited the United States. Durham wrote that he had assumed he would find that the rebellions were based on liberalism and economics, but he eventually concluded that the real problem was the ethnic conflict between French and English. According to Durham, the French culture in Canada had changed little in 200 years, and showed no sign of progress like British culture had. His report contains the famous assessment that Canada consisted of "two nations warring within the bosom of a single state." (1838)

The use of the the name "Canada" here is unclear. There was no "single state" called Canada in 1838, as Upper and Lower Canada were not unified until after this report &mdash; indeed, it was the result of this report. The reference to the Patriotes is specific to Lower Canada, but "the colonies" could mean the whole of British North America.

Most important, the final sentence is just misleading. The report is available on Wikisource and what it actually says this about is Lower Canada:


 * In a Dispatch which I addressed to Your Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 9th of August last, I detailed with great minuteness, the impressions which had been produced on my mind by the state of things which existed in Lower Canada: I acknowledged that the experience derived from my residence in the Province had completely changed my view of the relative influence of the causes which had been assigned for the existing disorders. I had not, indeed, been brought to believe that the institutions of Lower Canada were less defective than I had originally presumed them to be. From the peculiar circumstances in which I was placed, I was enabled to make such effectual observations as convinced me that there had existed in the constitution of the Province, in the balance of political powers, in the spirit and practice of administration in every department of the Government, defects that were quite sufficient to account for a great degree of mismanagement and dissatisfaction.... I expected to find a contest between a government and a people: I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state: I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races; and I perceived that it would be idle to attempt any amelioration of laws or institutions until we could first succeed in terminating the deadly animosity that now separates the inhabitants of Lower Canada into the hostile divisions of French and English.

(Emphasis is mine)

I've edited the section to say "Lower Canada" in the final sentence and tagged "Canada" in the first one with a request for clarification. But what this bit needs is a rewrite by someone who knows the facts better than me and can talk about what he did in the different colonies, without using anachronistic terminology.

--142.205.241.254 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved buidhe 05:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Report on the Affairs of British North America → Durham Report – WP:Commonname In the last discussion on this page about this, everyone agreed that the name should be changed so something closer to the name everyone knows it by. The Canadian Encyclopedia uses the term "Durham Report". Mottezen (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - keep the official name for the main article and redirect common names to it. Mikus (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Mikus' rationale is not based in policy. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree but that's for the closer to judge not us. Andrewa (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Common name rather than official name is the long-standing article name policy. Andrewa (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External link
The link provided in the external link section does not provide access to the Report. I suggest this link might be used: Lord Durham’s Report on British North America

Fredericgouin (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Durhan
Ummm Lord Durham did not write the report 102.176.8.196 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)