Talk:Political culture of Canada/Archive 1

Untitled
Ugh. This article reads like a high school essay. It requires an overall rewrite with a better style. I'm not sure how valuable this article is at all, as it stands. It essentially consists of very generic assertions which do not, I think, accord with the totality of Canadian history. The writer had a very contemporaneous and narrow viewpoint.--Rumplefurskin 19:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In the following paragraph from the entry a few things are not clear at all: ¨The main differences between Canadian and US political culture seems to be, aside from these theoretical matters, the Canadian dedication to universal health care, and commitment to gun control, however futile given the quarter-billion guns (more than people) in the United States.¨

1. the 250 million guns you are quoting, are they in Canada or the US?
 * seems clear they're in the US, the prase is 'quarter billion guns in the United States' - if you find the wording difficult, you can change it. I don't.

And the resulting questions that arise from them being either in Canada or the US:

2. If they are in the US, then why the comment that it is futile - if the US is not commited to gun control?
 * it's futile or may be futile considering the 5000-km undefended border that is even more weakly guarded on the Canadian than US side. Guns can so easily be transported by so many means, that a Canadian who wants a gun has no trouble getting an illegal gun from the US.
 * Indeed. Several sources quote a figure saying about half of all illegal or illegally used firearms seized in Toronto in 2004 originated in the U.S. Though for the life of me, I can't find a source for it. — Lonelywurm 08:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

3. If they are in Canada, then why quote the figure at all, and why compare it to the population of the US?
 * there'd be no point in that,but I don't think that is what it says. Admittedly it assumes one realizes these facts about the border (huge, loose) and the US notoriously-lax gun control.

--Sascha Noyes

- This article needs an immense amount of work, and should probably be coordinated with Political_culture:United_States at least in form.

The basic idea of using Thomas Jefferson's ideals and habits to compare the two states seems rational, but obviously the present text is very much tongue in cheek.

It should be neutralized with subheadings like 'race relations', 'public education', etc. which is easy enough to relate to Jefferson's own lists of his ideas. If the same headings are followed in w:Political_culture:United_States and these issues are summarized in [[w:US-Canada_politics_compared, the three articles become particularly useful, as they will basically describe two states against the same contemporary ideal at the point where they diverged in history, and then compared against each other as presently realized. A very good structure.

Also, it's enough to say that Jefferson and Hemings could walk down the streets of Toronto as a couple and smoke marijuana openly (recently Canada's marijuana laws have been tossed out by the courts, at least in Ontario). It's not essential to the article to claim that Jefferson grew hemp or had an affair with Hemings - these assertions belong in the article on Jefferson himself, with attributions sufficient to ensure that they aren't easily reversible.

Thanks, Two16, for being patient, this article will be at least as good as US-Canada_politics_compared within a week, if not, just hack it apart ______

When somebody in the community wanted expaination for simply purging all the information, rather than salvaging what ever content was there. I wrote: edited for relevance and continuity

The article got off to a false start with:

Canadian political culture is in some ways part of a common North American political culture, emphasizing constitutional law, religious freedom, personal liberty and regional autonomy, and generally deriving from the ideas of Thomas Jefferson on these matters.

Usually some mention is made of a common heritage through British Common Law with other English speaking countries,Quebec's Civil Code derived from Roman law, First Nations, the British Empire, the Conscription Crisis, vast geography and short history ....

Most emphatically the Canadain political ideals of "Peace, Order and Good Government" evolved in Great Brittain and pre-Confefederation Canada and are very distinct from Jeffersonian "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."


 * That Canadian statement was chosen precisely to counter Jefferson's, which was made much earlier. Like most things Canadian, it states the differences and makes a big deal out of differences with America, instead of similarities.  It also is provably false.  Canada entered the Boer War, WWI and WWII all before the US did, all before it had to.  That is not exactly a stance for 'peace' or at least not obviously more so than the US.


 * This article is about what the political CULTURE is, not the political IDEALS. And part of that culture is to lie about how similar Canada is to the USA.  Ask anyone from Quebec if you don't agree.

The second paragraph contains additional sperious Jefferson material,


 * 'sperious'? right

falsely says that Canada bans private private universities (education is provincial matter under BNA Act (1867) Section 92), opens 9 links to empty pages including BCBud and Canada's Marijuana law

The title is going to be impossible for to write a standard opening sentence for. (The first sentence uses the title of the article bolded in a complete sentence). The article must be renamed.

I know that you have made changes since I wrote this :but I'm leaving it in so you understand why I purged it:

It isn't worth having especially given the high chance that an article is emerging right now (possibly spun off from a large article where it will have had a chance to grow under the care of many minds and many hands. An article like that is going to avoid blind spots and use the skills experience and knowledge of many people).

An article this shoddy and top of the head is more trouble to edit than to writte new.

We are writing in a particular genre: Encyclopedia. It has its own rules and conventions. Naming conventions helps with the search engine. One other thing comments get added at the bottom. It equivilant to drivng on the same sifde of the street. A wiki is not a good fforum for threaded discussions.

142 I dont want to chew up any more talk space which is not relate to this article. You can leave a message on my talk page. Two16

---

All right, this is useful at least, and the principle of clearing space for more carefully written comment is partially agreed, but in my experience the way to get that extra comment is to sketch in the structure of whole articles even if you are just trying to get others involved (some call it 'trolling').


 * There are more efficeint ways of building the wikipedia. I'm not so sure that you are qualified to comment to this. We are here to write an encyclopedia.

Opening a lot of links to empty pages is a deliberate strategy as well, since both the odd history of marijuana growing in BC and the emegence of BC Bud as a near-brand-name, and the odd history of marijuana laws in Canada (more of a current event), need their own articles just to explain what is going on and how weird it is. Having nine links to unwritten articles that are all worth writing is a feature, not a bug. It's a bug if they are not worth writing.


 * People with much more experiencce beg to differ. All those links may
 * have already have articles. By opening aa new article when every you    want creates weeding work for others that taks them away from writing brilliant prose.


 * highly unlikely there was a pre-existing article on BC Bud. But now there is.

You are correct on the ban point, but here's the details: universities are a provincial matter, but as a point of fact all provinces did ban them until one (Ontario) removed that ban a couple of years ago. To date none have opened, and some think that union activity in public universities will prevent that. In terms of a Political Culture of Canada article, this one belongs more in Political Culture of Ontario...


 * Ontario is part of Canada, so the statement in the article is false.


 * note it was not put back in. point is moot.

If the issue with writing is style, say so in the comment, without weasel words like 'relevance' or 'continuity'. As for the clunky start, agreed, but the point of it was to stickwith the silly one-sentence stub that was there and hopefully attract the initial contributor of it (obviously interested in the topic but unsure of what to say) back in. So extending it seemed like the best way to keep the conversation going, and get that user back in, contributing.


 * I'm glad that you are thinking of the Encyclopedia. However the
 * Wikipedia has had much practical experience evolving content. The
 * method that you suggest has been rejected as inefficient. You do not
 * have to reinvent the horse. Open source communities are a process: as
 * a newcommer you may have difficulty precieving that at first.


 * I wrote the first substantial pass, and I did NOT write the first stub. So I didn't choose the strategy.  You are lecturing the wrong person.  Someone else seemed to be inviting a collaboration by posting something silly, i.e. 'there should be an article here, here's an opening challenge'.  Maybe it's inefficient, but they did it, and all I did was respond to it.  But point made, I generally agree with you, and don't lay down 'openers'.


 * I don't know what you mean by 'community'. The type of interaction here is very different than that in a real community, as I understand that word.

New articles simply aren't going to meet all the style requirements especially if they are written by new authors. Better to get them laid out messily as in essay-writing, all thepoints covered,and then clean them up after a week or so.


 * No, arguement to your first sentence. Best to do it in a word processor
 * where it will be safe and nobody will think it should be dumped on the   : basis of quality.

You still have not responded to my criticism of your thesis. Hoping that you will study how to do it. Use help button to bring you to editing policy. Check out newcommers on the first page.


 * The thesis that Canada is not so similar to the US as to be most effectively discussed in Jefferson's terms? Well, if you believe that Canada is more about "Peace, Order ,and Good Government" than "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" then you're believing propaganda of both nations.  Neither could be said to have made any great moves towards either until say 1965.

Patience would be required for that, though. 142


 * Patience is required to work so that the Wikipedians work together like an eightman rowboat.


 * with or without paddles?


 * Are those metaphorical? Maybe you ment a paddling? :-0   "No granddad No!" :: LoL


 * I am very sympathetic to Jefferson. Your strongest arguement is to find that the good governmeet idealised in BNAA(1867) is best exemplified by Jefferson's "The best government is that government that governs least." This is something best taken up in the Meta-pedia. It is somewhat of a research topic though I have already done some thinking about this in the past. In Meta it would face gentler critique because it would not be interrpeted as unique research material or 'ideosyncratic nonsense " (This unenlightened criticism is thrown by the ignorant at things the don't understand) and evolve to the point that it would easily fit into some article of the 'pedia if not this one.

If you would like to understand a little bit of where I am coming from read my comments in Talk:Maoism.

Please click Help! button to go to menus on almost everything. There is nothing fascist about a few traffic rules, Any ways you are freely here and free to go. Eventually you will learn to leverage your work for maximum effect.

Jefferson's ideal Republic?
In this section it says that Canada has "an economy based on agricultural productivity." I'm not entirely sure this is accurate. Canada is a bit more than a bunch of farms, eh?

-Indefual 21:23, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)

That entire paragraph is ridiculous. Jefferson, in today's political culture, could be described as a libertarian; he favored a very limited role for the federal government and virtually no taxation. He'd turn in his grave if he knew that a heavily taxed, heavily regulated constitutional monarchy was being compared to his vision of a republic. I made some changes to the paragraph, but frankly I think it should be dropped entirely. Funnyhat 18:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Jefferson reference as it is ridiculous and quite simply wrong. At best it is an error, and at worst a fabrication. TrulyTory 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)