Talk:Dominion

Newfoundland - when a Dominion? 1855? 1907? 1931?

wasn't Newfoundland a Dominion? When did it become one?

---

A very good question: Newfoundland enjoyed near-complete internal self-government from 1855 until the creation of an appointed Commission of Government in 1934. The declaration of the 1926 Imperial Conference stated that "The Governor of Newfoundland is in the same position as the Governor-General of a Dominion", indicating clearly that Newwdoundland was not then considered technically a Dominion, though enjoying many of the same rights in practice. Newfoundland was, however, defined as a Dominion by the Statute of Westminster (11 December 1931), so Dominion status lasted in theory for 26 months.

However, the Statute did not itself constitute a change in the territory's de facto constitutional status, and Newfoundland never wielded the same kind of diplomatic independence as Canada or Australia came to enjoy. I think the territory's real status is in some doubt, and have therefore not included it among the Dominions proper, i.e. those former British dependencies which possessed full effective sovereignty within the Empire. - David Parker

For what it is worth, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was determining the Labrador boundary between Canada and Newfoundland in 1926-27, the reference reads "In the matter of the boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the colony of Newfoundland in the Labrador Peninsula, between the Dominion of Canada of the one part and the colony of Newfoundland of the other part. Forts and trading posts in Labrador Peninsula and adjoining territory". I have bolded the word colony. Library and Archives Canada lists several publications arising from this case 1926-27. This seems to suggest that as far as the legal authorities were concerned (and none are higher than the Privy Council) Newfoundland was a colony in 1926-27. --BrentS 02:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A good source; so it seems Newfoundland remained a self-governing colony until 1931.Grant65 (Talk) 06:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that Newfoundland was the first "Dominion" in 1855 is misleading. There is no proof for this. I suspect that what Newfoundland achieved in 1855 was responsible government, a form of self-government where the premier/prime minister directs the executive rather than the appointed governor. So far as I can tell, the word "dominion" made its first modern appearance in 1867 in the British North America Act. So I think the chronology should make this clearer. Do Australia and New Zealand's constitutional acts use the word "dominion"? Or is dominion more a "type" of colonial government.--BrentS 15:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the question of self-govt and responsible govt, I wrote the par on the introduction of these to the colonies, and I checked the dates thoroughly, but an error or two may have crept in.

It comes back to the question of what a dominion is; there is clearly usage of "dominion" before 1867 and whereas the D. of New England was clearly not a "capital-D Dominion", in the later sense, whereas there seem to be a number of sources that refer to Newfoundland as being a "dominion" in 1855(?)

Compared to Canada,[1] "dominion" is rarely used within the Commonwealth of Australia, except by scholars.[2] The only exception I can think of in popular culture is the Interdominion event in harness racing, so called because it also involves horses from the country that used to be called the Dominion of New Zealand....where the word is still quite common it seems.[3] Grant65 (Talk) 17:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Newfoundland was granted responsible government in 1855, but did not gain Dominion status until 1907. In 1933, Newfoundland reverted to colonial status due to bankruptcy. As a result, the Parliament of Newfoundland was abolished & a 6-man Commission of Government was instituted under the chairmanship of the Governor. 3 of the 6 members of the Commission of Government were Newfoundlanders, & the other 3 members were British Government appointees. This lasted until 1949, when the result of the 1948 referendum was put into effect. A majority had voted in favour of union with Canada. It is interesting to note that the Viceregal representative under the Dominion retained the title 'Governor of Newfoundland'. There was never a Governor-General of Newfoundland. - (Aidan Work 02:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

Canadian provinces before 1867

The article on dominions notes the Australian states, NZ, and Newfoundland all had internal self-government before Canada became the first dominion in 1867. True. But the Canadian provinces which joined in 1867 and the later additions also had internal self-government. Quebec and Ontario (Lower and Upper Canada respectively), Nova Scotia, PEI, and New Brunswick all had parliaments prior to 1867. As the article notes, Newfoundland also had a parliament before 1867. I'm not sure about the Prairie provinces or British Columbia.

Upper and Lower Canada united in 1841 and had a single legislature from 1841 to 1867. B.C. had a royal governor but no legislature until 1871, when it joined Confederation. Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory had no organized government other than the Aboriginal governments and the Hudson's Bay Company.--Indefatigable 16:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Responsible government came to Canada in 1848 under Lord Elgin. See the article on him and the Province of Canada. Responsible government basically means self-government in internal matters without interference from the governor or governor-general. Foreign and military affairs remain with the imperial government.--BrentS 02:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Self-government

I have altered the text to make it more relevant to Dominions other than Canada. I have also introduced the concept of a self-governing colony, which is a term widely used in Australia and New Zealand at least, to refer to the intermediate historical stage between Crown Colony and Dominion status (a hiatus which lasted 57 years in NZ and 46 years in most of the Australian cases). A new page, "self-governing colony" also needs to be written. Possibly the stuff about New Zealand, the Cape Colony, etc getting self-government needs to be moved there from the Dominion page? (Grant; March 3, 2004.)

Have you seen the page on Crown colonies? To my mind any material either belongs there or here. Andrew Yong 19:10, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Andrew, I did see it, but as I said, and at least for Australasian readers, there was a long, separate stage of constitutional development, i.e. self-governing colony, between Crown Colony and Dominion. I think this needs to be pointed out more strongly in the Dominion text, given Australia and New Zealand's prominence among the Dominions. Crown Colony, to me, as a long-time student of British Empire history, implies direct rule from London, whereas self-governing colonies tended to be independent states in everything except name. (And from my reading of the pages on Canadian history, it seems to have been the case there also, in the provinces formed before 1867, although I will gladly defer to the experts ). (Grant; 11pm UTC+8, March 3, 2004.)

Perhaps, but where do you draw the line between self-governing colony and a pre-1931 dominion? 1867 seems to me an arbitrary line, since the Dominion of Canada was constitutionally not all that different from the self-governing Australasian colonies. But if you have enough content to create a new page on self-governing colonies without too much duplication of content on the crown colonies and dominion pages, do as you see fit. This to me is the main issue. Andrew Yong 23:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Newfoundland: PM or premier?

There are at least as many web sources referring to Philip Francis Little as Newfoundland's "Prime Minister", as there are calling him "Premier". Even the Canadian Parliament refers to these early first ministers as Prime Ministers.[4] The two terms, etymologically, are identical and "Premier" is often used instead of PM (as in the "Chinese premier"), depending on conventional practice. These days it is really only in the federal systems of Canada and Australia that the two are distinct offices. However, I think we need some adjudication on this, as it is important in assessing whether or not Newfoundland was a dominion in 1855.Grant65 (Talk) 15:54, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

There is no practical difference between a "premier" and a "prime minister" in the Westminster system. Premier was widely used in 19th century Canada to refer to Macdonald, Mackenzie, Thompson, Laurier. The Newfoundland Heritage site says the term prime minister of Newfoundland came into use after 1901. It is not anything to get exercised about. Premier was likely used more commonly before 1901 just as it was in Canada in newspaper reports.--BrentS 02:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, but it's not true for Australia. I don't believe a PM has ever been called "premier" within Australia, and it causes bemusement when foreign media refer to the PM as "the Australian Premier, John Howodd" etc. Grant65 (Talk) 06:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Correction, from a search on Google[5] it seems the term "federal premier" appeared occasionally in Australia during the negotiations for federation and just after it occurred, in the 1890s and early 1900s.Grant65 (Talk) 06:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite Feb 10, 2005 Reasons

After some research I have rewritten this historical section. First Newfoundland was not a dominion in 1855. What Newfoundland achieved in 1855 was "responsible government" (source Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador volume 2 (1984) Government article). It makes no difference if Little was called "premier" or "prime minister"; either title is appropriate in the Westminster system and is really a matter of local practice. Page 628 of this encyclopedia has an extensive discussion of Newfoundland's "dominion" status and I have quoted from it re the Nfld legislature never approving sections 2-6 of the Statute of Westminster (1931). Also Newfoundland never joined the League of Nations, and permitted the UK to conduct its external affairs, although it insisted upon consultation especially on anything to do with the fishery. In 1939 Newfoundland did not make any separate declaration of war as did Canada and in 1945 it did not apply for separate membership in the United Nations. All these reasons are given on p. 628 of the Encyclopedia, a collective work by many scholars. Nfld became a dominion in 1931 where it is mentioned in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster, but it chose not to exercise all of the functions allowed to a dominion. Prior to that it was a self-governing colony, and the Encyclopedia even has a section in the Government article with this heading "Self-Government 1855-1934". As for responsible government, Nova Scotia is the first colony to achieve this status, not the Province of Canada. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Parliamentary government in British Columbia dates from the inauguration of the first legislature of the Colony of Vancouver Island, Aug. 12, 1856, but responsible government was not achieved until confederation." This makes sense as merely to have an elected legislature is not a sufficient test of "responsible government". To have "responsible government" the executive power must be answerable to the legislature and the people, i.e. the Crown's power must be exercized by and with the consent of the legislature, hence the term "Governor-in-Council". I was doubtful of the phrase "dominion status" as there is no statute laying out such a term until much later than 1867. All "dominion" meant in 1867 was an avoidance of "kingdom" or "colony", but as many have argued that did not mean that Canada was not a colony, just a different kind of colony. Finally, unless someone can come up with documentary proof of some British colony possessing the name "dominion" between the 18th century and 1867, the Dominion of Canada seems to be the first modern use of the term. Maybe some astute individual in the Colonial Office remembered the term and resurrected it in 1867 for Canada, just as today someone in the British goverment has resurrected Prince Albert's title as Prince Consort of Queen Victoria for Camilla Parker-Bowles, said to be styled Princess Consort. Hope this helps.--BrentS 02:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada

On July 5, 2005, User:64.231.245.210 added these words:

The government's usage of Dominion when referring to the country is rare, but officials from the Ministry of Canadian Heritage have confirmed in recent times that the official name of the country is indeed still the Dominion of Canada. The Constitution Act, 1982 changed nothing in this wording.

Can anyone provide any evidence to support this claim? If it is true, then changes must be made to Canada and Canada's name to reflect this. If not, then it should be deleted from this article. Ground Zero 21:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree: if the editor who added this cannot support it, the passage should be deleted. The two main arguments are (1) the official name has always been "Dominion of Canada" and has not been changed (2) the official name has never been "Dominion of Canada". The third argument (the name used to be officially "Dominion of Canada" but not anymore) does not hold water, because no one can point to an official document that changed the name. Unfortunately, this "officially changed theory" is what you have implied by your recent edit to Politics of Canada. Indefatigable 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Canada used to be styled as the "Dominion of Canada" in official documents (banknotes, for example, and there are Royal Proclamations that have used it) so referring to that as the "former official style" is correct. The "style" is not the name. There may be a better way of getting that idea across, however, so please feel free to change what I've written. Regards, Ground Zero 21:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made this deletion. It should be restored if evidence to support it is provided. Ground Zero 19:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Style and Title" means long form name

This is a very old arguement. I support the position that the long form name of the country formed on July 1, 1867, was and is today the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. The overwhelming majority (i.e., the consensus) of people here hold the view that the only name of the country founded on July 1, 1867, is simply just Canada. I support the position that this "constitutional literalist" interpretation of letter of the constitution in fact violates the spirit of constitution that the Fathers of Confederation intended (i.e., the Fathers of Confederation intent was to designate that the long form name of the country as the Dominion of Canada).

If one carefully inspects all of the relavent amendments to the British North America Act for the first 50 years of this country's existance (i.e., 1867-1917) one will note the explicit inclusion of the long form full name of the Dominion of Canada (and correspondingly use of Canada as a short form name) in every salient document.

The term Style and Title (or just Style, or Title alone) does in fact mean "the long form name". This is borne out when one studies the rules of the Order of Precedence (literally meaning "who proceeds first").

70.30.193.143 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the Wikipedia article Canada's Name#Use of Canada and Dominion of Canada has it right: the only legal name of the country is "Canada", but the official title is "Dominion of Canada". This is consistent with the terminology used on the Canadian Heritage website: [6]. If you look at modern international treaties to which Canada is a party, it's never referred to as the "Dominion of Canada". For example: [7]. There, Germany is referred to by it's long-form name, "the Federal Republic of Germany", while Canada is referred to as just "Canada". --Mathew5000 01:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Virginia - Old Dominion

shouldn't Virginia be on here? it was declared a dominion by Charles II, long before the page says the term came into usage in relation with Canada.

This Article Is Confusing

This article is confusing, there's no definitive statement as to a Dominion's status. Were they countries in the full sense? Were they de facto countries but legally subsets of the Empire? When did that change if ever? This should be explained. - MichiganCharms 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes the article is very confusing - mainly because the terms ' Dominion ' and ' Dominion status ' are misunderstood . Whether a territory was called a Dominion or not did not change its legal/political status . Territories within the British Empire whether referred to as Dominion(of Canada) ,Commonwealth (of Australia) or Union(of South Africa ) were still classed as colonies or at best self-governing colonies - that was their legal/political status . ' Dominion status ' was defined in 1926 as 'autonomous Communities within the British Empire '- it was the Statute of Westminster 1931 that defined the degree of autonomy that the defined set of British territories had . Political equality was granted which meant legislative equality . But legal Sovereignty remained with the British government . The British Government could still legislate for a 'Dominion' but had agreed not to do so without the 'request and consent' of the Dominion . In strict legal theory the Imperial Government could still legislate for a Dominion but it had agreed 'in writing ' not to do so without consultation .

The Statute of Westminster also stated that no new legislation of the British Government after 1931 would refer to the specified territories as 'colonies '.

'Dominion status' meant very autonomous but not Sovereign .

The article states that the term 'Dominion' fell into disuse after 1949 which is correct but the concept of 'Dominion status ' continued on - in fact Fiji achieved that status in 1970 and was also renamed the Dominion of Fiji . lejon Lejon (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Grant | Talk 05:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "dominion" shouldn't normally be capitalized

It's a normal word: [8] Jonathan David Makepeace 01:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)•

"dominion" has a broader meaning which Britannica isn't recognising (see dominion (disambiguation); this article is specifically about the Dominions of the Commonwealth.Grant | Talk 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, "dominion" is not normally capitalised, when used in the sense of a kingdom or area over which power or sovereignty is held, or in the sense of that power or sovereignty itself. But "Dominion" is capitalised in the context of territories like Australia, Canada or New Zealand in the 19th and early 20th centuries, because in that sense "Dominion" referred to a particular type of entity within the British Empire, pseudo-self governing states which were not republics but which had more control over their own affairs than self-governing colonies.

The distinction has become a bit confused of late in the lede, so I've altered that to hopefully make the distinction clearer. --bainer (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite authority for that? I've scowered the Canadian government's style guide for any exception to the general rule. There doesn't seem to be any that would call for the capitalization of the word dominion when referring to dominions of the Commonwealth. Here, for example, is a page from Veterans Affairs on which it is not capitalized (1st paragraph under "Newfoundland goes to war): http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/FirstWar/fact_sheets/somme

Or here the British High Commission to Nigeria (see the first paragraph under British Nationality Act 1948, usage continues throughout the text): http://www.britishhighcommission.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1107298156418

Or here a page from the Institute of Commonwealth studies (you'd think they'd know, eh?): http://commonwealth.sas.ac.uk/british.htm

Jonathan David Makepeace 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan David Makepeace. What is the beef with Dominion? The capitolised Dominion has a specific context, and is historically correct. The plain fact of this seems to escape you. Perhaps screwing with British Commonwealth of Nations Flags was not enough ... you now want to re-write the Constitutions as well?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "dominion" refers to a class of entities, not to a specific entity, therefore it is a common noun, like any other common noun, e.g., the republics, the provinces, the states, the sovereignties, the duchies, the principalities, etc. Jonathan David Makepeace 16:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When referring to a kingdom or area over which power or sovereignty is held, or that power or sovereignty itself, "dominion" is a common noun. However, when referring to this particular kind of non-republican self-governing territory, it is a proper noun and should be capitalised. Any constitutional law text which discuss the legal features of the latter will capitalise the word. This is an example of a resource at the British National Archives which capitalises the word when referring to those self-governing territories. Here is a contemporary source which capitalises the word when referring to those self-governing territories. Here is a paper discussing the Statute of Westminster which capitalises the word when referring to those self-governing territories.

Random information pages on the web aren't necessarily going to make the distinction. Any text, however, which is written in a context in which the distinction between "dominion" (a territory, or power over such) and "Dominion" (a particular type of self-governing territory within the British Empire) is significant (which includes this article) will capitalise accordingly. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your phrase "this particular KIND [emphasis mine] of non-republican self-governing territory" fits the definition of a common noun perfectly, it is a class of entities, not a specific entity. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that this article unequivocally describes British Dominions within the Empire and Commonwealth (self-governing colonies), not dominions (i.e. generic dependencies of Britain). The distinction is even discussed in the article at some length, with a historical development. I think documents such as the the Constitution Act (1867), the Statute of Westminster (1931) and the Balfour Declaration (1926) are pretty much as authoritative than random documents found on the web. Read any of the references found at the bottom of the page. All refer to "Dominions". You will note that the article also refers to "dominions" where it discusses generic territories ruled by the Sovereign. It is possible that the references you cite refer to this, or that they simply get it wrong. in any case, an article on "dominions" would not be appropriate in an encyclopedia; it would be more of a dictionary entry. --Soulscanner 09:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the entry for 'dominion' in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, sense 4:

• 4 - often capitalized : a self-governing nation of the Commonwealth of Nations other than the United Kingdom that acknowledges the British monarch as chief of state

Read: often, not '(always) capitalized'.

At this point, I don't really care whether instances are capitalised or not throughout. IMO: I would actually say not to capitalise (in partial concurrence with JDM), or to do so judiciously depending on the context, since all nouns were capitalised in British legislative style (e.g., "One Dominion under the Name of Canada"): so, 'dominion(s)' in general parlance but 'Dominion of Canada', 'Dominion forces'. To do otherwise appears superfluous.

In any event, as with this (POV) edit, removing such a reference from the introduction is reason enough to revert edits to the contrary. Don't do it again. Quizimodo 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the definition from Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English "dominion • noun 1 sovereignty; control. 2 the territory of a sovereign or government. 3 (Dominion) historical a self-governing territory of the British Commonwealth." Note: 3 (Dominion), not "often" or an alternative. The second reference for the article, [9] capitalizes "Dominion" throughout. If you look through [10], the 1911 version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, "dominion" is sometimes capititalized, sometimes not, but when referring to the countries of the British Empire, it is ALWAYS capitalized. In this Wikipedia article, "dominion" (almost) always refers to these countries or their specific status, and should be capitalized consistently. Silverchemist 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, (2004, p. 443):

• do•min•ion noun 1 sovereign authority; control. 2 the territory of a sovereign or government; a domain. 3 the title of each of the self-governing territories of the Commonwealth. 4 a (the Dominion) hist. informal Canada. b Cdn. (Nfld.) hist. Newfoundland as a self-governing part of the Commonwealth prior to its entry into Canadian Confederation in 1949. [Old French from medieval Latin dominio -onis from Latin dominium from dominus lord]

As with the Merriam-Webster entry, sense 3 is of relevance here (while sense 4 is more applicable to specific Canadian/Newfoundland usage, e.g., in the Canadian Encyclopedia). Quizimodo 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We now have some cases where there is no rhyme nor reason to the capitalization. For example "The Balfour Declaration (1926) and the Statute of Westminster (1931) ended Britain's responsibility for the defence and foreign affairs of the Dominions. Significantly, it was Britain which initiated the change to complete independence for the dominions." IMHO this random, inconsistent use of capitals looks sloppy and unprofessional, and the only apparant reason is to satisfy "often" , but not "always" in some dictionary entries. (btw, Wiktionary lists Dominion, referring to the British Empire countries, as a proper noun [[11]]). We have no issues with capitalizing "Queen" (even when not followed by a country name or her personal name) or "Commonwealth" consistently, do we? Isn't the rationale the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverchemist (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All things are not equal: the above sample of text merely indicates that diligence in editing is required.

Anyhow, as above, I don't really care whether it is capitalised or not throughout the article; thus, I have restored the prior article. However, I have retained the reference and variants in the introduction, the blatant and continued removal of which -- in breach of Wikipedia policies -- will not stand. Quizimodo 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization (continued) and African "dominions"

I have capitalized most instances of the word "Dominion" when it refers to certain countries within the British Empire between 1907 and 1948. I did not make this change for the African countries which gained independence in the 50s and 60s. I looked at their histories in Wikipedia and found no mention of "dominion" or "Dominion" in any of them. I assume that none of these counries considered themselves "dominions" (or at least none of the Wikipedia editors did). This perplexes me. I would like this article to be consistent with those other historical articles.Silverchemist 22:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quizimodo you are violating WP:Consensus here. We have conflicting sources, this is clearly a matter of opinion about style and under Wikipedia policy, the original style of Dominion should stand unless there is consensus for change. Grant | Talk 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What conflict, and what consensus? I am merely providing a reliable source about capitalisation that should support content on the page. Others have been provided above. If you can provide a more germane citation regarding this (e.g., from a 'Commonwealth' source), be my guest. Until then, refrain from removing it and from attempting to push your opinion of 'style' down our throats. Quizimodo 22:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a long established consensus about "Dominion". No other editor thinks that it should be "dominion". If there is no consensus for change then WP policy says that the statsus quo should hold.

Furthermore, your source isn't a relevant source because it is an American dictionary. The article is about an institution in Commonwealth countries. It uses Dominion because that is the style in Commonwealth English. Spelling and usage in American English are not relevant to this article. Grant | Talk 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies are abound. First of all, there is no consensus to support your viewpoint: at least one other editor above concurs. As well, please consult the definition above from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, sense 3, which is the major one that applies here ... and it isn't capitalised. Your other points are of little relevance. Quizimodo 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The British National archives capitalises the word.
• Legislation in Australia uses "Dominion".
• The Canadian Privy Council Office: "Dominions".

In addition, The Canadian Encyclopedia uses "Dominons".

The problem is that there is no consistency in the way that official sources capitalise or do not capitalise the word. That being the case, WP policy is that the status quo should hold. Regards, Grant | Talk 05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You have just made the point: if there is no consistency, the Wikipedia article should reflect that. So, there is no problem; thus, the status quo (i.e., the current article and lead, in place for the better part of two months) should hold ... and that entails the notation and reference upfront. Thanks. Quizimodo 16:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dead link...

This link appears to be dead, is this the version that was intended?--Gregalton 13:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tags

Please do not remove neutrality tags or quotes. Doing so violates Wiki policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Until this note, you have not discussed your edits or tags nor have you garnered any consensus in support of them. Insistence on doing so, given your prior performance at 'Canada' regarding this topic and the evidence presented here and there, is arguably disruptive -- any edits made or tags placed which further demonstrate your ill-behaviour will be dealt with appropriately. End note. Quizimodo (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tags do not require consensus. They indicate a dispute. Ther eis one here. Please review Wiki policy. You can link directly from the tags. Reason for tags can be reviewed in history. Request for quotes backing up claims is provided below. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quote from Wikipedia policy on NPOV disputes. It does not require consensus to put one on. Indeed, disputes like this one demand it. It requires conensus to remove it.

"Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."--Soulscanner (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your placement of these tags is more to further a point, one which you are either unwilling or unable to corroborate. Until you do, they do not belong; however, I would welcome the intervention and attention of third parties or experts in scrutinising said material, since you haven't really provided any. Quizimodo (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tags were to indicate disagreement about beginning of Dominion status. We have a dispute. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

--Soulscanner (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)== Dispute over Canada's current legal title ==

• There are no sources quoted here that describe Dominion as Canada's current legal title. Please provide quotes from the four sources cited that verify the claim that Canada's current legal title is that of a Dominion and what the significance of this title is in Canadian law.
• The sources cited come from government websites and are not attributed to any authors. There is no way of telling whether they are based on credible legal opinions.
• I would also like a source that precisely defines what a "legal title" is in this context. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Current title? I thought Canada dropped the Dominion of.. thing years ago. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quizimodo (talk • contribs)

Actually, all the sources provided indicate the legal or official nature of 'Dominion' as Canada's title. It is ironic that you reference How Canadians Govern Themselves by Eugene Forsey in your edits, yet reject it when it comes to this point; for example:

• The two small points on which our constitution is not entirely homemade are, first, the legal title of our country, “Dominion,”... (p. 8)

In addition:

• Rayburn, Alan (2001). Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names (2nd ed. ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. pp. 13-4. ISBN 0-8020-8293-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help): "Dominion continues to be part of the official title of this country..."
• Oxford Companion to Canadian History; Gerald Hallowell, ed; (2004), p. 183: -- 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

implies autonomy that Canada did not have in 1867

I have no problem citing opinions of "monarchists such as Eugene *ForseyEugene Forsey" as long as they are clearly labeled as monarchist POV

Well, this is not a call for you to make: while authored by Forsey, HCGT is actually published by the federal government. Do you opt to refer to the government as monarchist, and Rayburn and Hodgetts too, both of whom indicate the same thing? Can you provide one reputable source that indicates something different? Next. Quizimodo (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is whether Forsey the author is a monarchist. Is he or is he not a monarchist? The quote says so, not me. When he says that Canada's official title is still a Dominion, is he not stated a monarchist point of view? I think so. What do you think? --Soulscanner (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They may not elaborate about the significance of the title in law, but they don't necessarily need to: they are what they are.

Conversely, you have provided none to dispute the assertion, resorting to argumentum ad nauseum and hyperbole. But, this has been pointed out multiple times on the 'Canada' page. Given your intransigence, I have rolled back you subjective edits and, unless compelled otherwise or until you edit in a collegial manner, will continue to edit appropriately. Quizimodo (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Title of dominion was to:

The purpose of the Dominon title was:

* to mollify Canada's republican neighbour

* represent the founding monarchical principle

* NOT to recognize new automomy; on the contrary, it confirmed subjugation to the British Monarch and Parliament; Dominion status

Your point is unclear. Quizimodo (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dominion" title did not confer Dominion status (semi-autonomous colony); that definition did not exist until 1907; Dominion meant "possession of the Queen, like her African colonies. I think that is clear. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is your opinion. Quizimodo (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the opinion of Eugene Forsey, Andrew Heard, and Frank Scott. It's documented in the article. It's not my opinion, and I never presented it as such. Please provide me with a legal opinion from comparable constitutional scholars that indicate that Dominion status (not title) existed in 1867. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's your opinion of theirs. Since the lead is not making such an assertion, you seem to be flogging a dead horse: even if 'dominion' status came about in 1906, the title was still conferred on the prototypic 'dominion' -- Canada -- 39 years earlier. Your insistence on placing a start date in the lead, given the ambiguity of source matter and your own confusion, is perplexing. 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead implies that this was the definition in 1867. It was not. That is why we need a beginning date. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no: the lead indicates "prior to 1948." Quizimodo (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1867 is not "prior to 1948"? --Soulscanner (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre 1907 definition of Dominion

Prior to 1907, dominions referred to overseas possession of British monarch, of which Canada was one, not autonomous colonies. This started changing in 1907. The 1907 switch was a question of nomenclature, and did not establish a second colonial status. Several quotes in text from referenced, scholarly sources note that the beginning of different dominion status above that of colony was established in practice in 1919 and formally recognized in 1931. Other unverifiable claims seem to imply otherwise. Neutrality tag should stay until this issue is settled. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue with seeking further justification for the current date -- what is clear is that 1907 was not the starting point of 'dominion' status. You again are misinterpreting the source to justify your position: this was also pointed out on the 'Canada' talk page. As such, the current text will hold until there is clarification. Quizimodo (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we have a disagreement. I've provided papers from scholarly sources saying that it started in 1919. POV tag stays until disagreement is resolved. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dominion status began in 1919. Quote clearly shows this.

"The First World War ended the purely colonial period in the history of the Dominions. Their military contribution to the Allied war effort gave them claim to equal recognition with other small states and a voice in the formation of policy. This claim was recognized within the Empire by the creation of the Imperial War Cabinet in 1917, and within the community of nations by Dominion signatures to the Treaty of Versailles and by seperate Dominion representation in the League of Nations. In this way the "self-governing Dominions", as they were called, emerged as junior members of the international community. Their status defied exact analysis by both international and constitutional lawyers, but it was clear that they were no longer to be regarded simply as colonies of Britain."

Scott's assertion that the great colonies were styled dominion only after the war is contradicted by various sources. An example: ‘At the 1907 Imperial Conference, the self-governing colonies (including Australia) were officially termed Dominions. However, this term did not represent a change in colonial status.’ It pays to consult a variety of sources, and not to put too much store in a single text, especially one written in 1944 in an American journal (American journals have never been very good at analysing Commonwealth politics).--Gazzster (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Frank Scott was a Canadian lawyer and legal scholar and worked at McGill. You'll see that if you check out the link. Lots of Canadians publish in American journals because they are more prestigious and widely read. Pierre Trudeau articled under Scott, who was a civil libertarian and famous for fighting Duplessis's repressive regime in 1950's Quebec; he was enormously influential on Trudeau in convincing him of the necessity of a Charter of Rights in the Constitution and to repatriate the constitution. You miht think of Scott as the grnadfather of our Constitution. I'm also fully aware that scholars will disagree on these issues; that's why I've quoted three distinguished Canadian scholars here. That being said, I don't disagree with you, and your source does not contradict Scott's assertion. Your source says that calling colonies Dominions did not represent a change in colonial status. Scott would agree with this becasue he's saying that joining the Imperial War Cabinet in 1917 and signing the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 DID change Canada's colonial status in some vague, indefinable way. That's what Dominion status is ... you're somewhere between a colony and an independent country ... a "junior member of the Empire", as Scott put it. This is all interesting, but beside the point right now. I have no problem with the 1907 - 1948 date in the first line. I object to the 1867 date because it did not make Canada dominion in the sense of being a semi-autonomous polity. --Soulscanner (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a disagreement which is promulgated merely by your waffling, lack of clarity, lack of comprehension, or all combined. The quote above doesn't quite indicate what you say it does: the above indicates dominion status may have begun in 1917. Since you were previously adamant that 1907 was the start date, again due to a lack of comprehension, at this point anything you provide or opine about shall be treated with skepticism. And, if nothing compelling is produced in short order, the uptop tag will be removed. As well, your continual addition of dickery tags for assertions already validated (e.g., the tag you just appendedto a sourced statement about the need for a constitutional amendment to remove 'Dominion' as Canada's title) will be dealt with. End note. Quizimodo (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise I see no indication in that paragraph that dominion status began in 1919. Theres however one phrase in that paragraph which is pertinent: 'their status defied exact analysis'. The truth of the matter is that British law never defined what a dominion was. The 1907 Imperial Conference decided that the name should be applied to a number of self-governing colonies (ie., Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the South African colonies) to distinguish them from 'crown' or directly ruled colonies. Another term used was 'great colony'. In other words, dominion was simply another word for colony. As time went on, other colonies were named dominions also. It was never more than a convenient catch-all term. --Gazzster (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case. As pointed out in the article by Heard, Canada earned it's independence by acting independently, not by gaining titles. The real question here is whether it was used for the purpose of identifying a semi-autonomous polity in 1867 as it was in 1907, 1919, 1926, and 1931. The answer is no. Before 1907, the word was used as a generic reference to am overseas possession of a British monarch. That's why it was adopted in Canada: to uphold the monarchist principle. It was NOT to recognize any level of autonomy or recognition of self-governing status; not until well after 1867. After 1907, it began to be used to recognize self-governing status of various colonies. That's why I prefer 1907, as stated in the Hillmer reference. --Soulscanner (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there agreement that the meaning of "dominion" in 1867 was not the same as its meaning in 1917? --JimWae (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Soulscanner (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading what's here, I'm not sure there is. Gazzster's right that "Dominion" became another term for colony, but it was a specific kind of colony; the kind of colony Canada became in 1867, when it was legally termed as a Dominion. So, within the Empire it seems that Canada became the model in terms of both governance (semi-independent self-governing territory under the British Crown) and style (Dominion). --G2bambino (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dominion of Canada was no more self-governing in 1867 than Nova Scotia had been in 1866. See quotes in article from Heard. Canadian independence was not granted by titles, it was taken by Parliamentary action. This was certainly the case by 1907. That's why NZ and NF wanted to be known as dominions too. It had nothing to do with the naming of the country in 1867, though. --soulscanner (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'the kind of colony Canada became in 1867'? Canada was not the first self-governin g colony. All six Australian colonies, for example, were self-governing for at least a decade before Canada was 'legally termed a dominion'?--Gazzster (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and, of course, there were Canadian self-governing colonies before Confederation. But, after 1867, as far as I understand it, the newly federated Canada was given more freedom in self-governance and less oversight by Westminster. Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and the rest followed suit, and it was this amount of self-governance that set the Dominions apart from simple Crown colonies. --G2bambino (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dominion" was not used to to indicate "semi-independent self-governing territory under the British Crown". In 1867, it was used to refer to any colony subservient to the British Crown and Parliament. The word Dominon was used to uphold that Monarchical principle. --Soulscanner (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, let's not try and make things so complicated. I suspect that we are presenting our interpretations of what dominion means. Let us stick to the barest fact- It was a self-governing British colony.G2, what is a 'semi-independent self-governing territory'? 'Self-governing' territory is enough, surely? But my objection was not to your definition, but to your idea that Canada is some kind of 'model' dominion. The six colonies I referred to were already self-governing in the sense Canada was well before 1867. They had their own elected legislatures, run according to Westminster principles. --Gazzster (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Justification for tags

Since some feel that tags are unnecessary or even disruptive, I'm justifying them here. Tags are a way of telling the reader which statements are being debated on the talk page.

• tag added: specifying need for documenting the beginning of the usage cited in lead sentence (I claim above that it starts in 1907, as cited in the reference). Other disagree. --Soulscanner (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What you claim is unclear and irrelevant. Misinterpretation of references and, as pointed out above, over-reliance on other unclear ones is insufficient. Until a clear citation is provided to justify your position (not yet done), the current text shall stand. Quizimodo (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• tag added: Monarchist view of Senator Forsey on current legal title of Canada (claim is that it is has a Dominion title) needs to be balanced with that of the mainstream in Canada; most in Canada are indifferent to monarchy. This point of current title is contested by several editors here, and the statement is made as an undisputed fact. The final section is now okay, because it at least implies that claims to Canada's current so-called "Dominion title" are largely monarchist. This is not echoed in the lead. --Soulscanner (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More than one reputable source indicates this. What the mainstream asserts is beside the point, since citations corroborating this point of view haven't been produced. The only references provided are those in support of the assertion. Can you produce any reputable citations that counter this? This has been brought up on the talk page before -- amidst polemicism, no counter-evidence has ever been provided (or at least in clear abundance). If this is not done within a reasonable timeframe, said tags will be removed. Quizimodo (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you'll find that the gradual fall into disuse of the term and it's elimination from legal and constitutional documents can be legitimately interpreted as a general indifference to the whole idea of "legal titles" as this one. It is the common POV in Canada, which does not make it right or wrong, but worthy of mention. The monarchist perspective is legitimate too, but it needs to be identified as monarchist POV. I'm not saying it needs to be removed: I'm saying it needs to be qualified. --Soulscanner (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This is your opinion. Any assertions regarding commonality and disuse of the title are already indicated in the article; anything extraneous and unsourced (as is your opinionating) doesn't belong and needn't be mentioned -- that is how Wikipedia operates. Quizimodo (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• POV tags alert reader to issues in the lead being discussed on this page. --Soulscanner (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AFAICT, you are the only advocate for these tags. Your reasons for the tags are mismatched: for example, you indicate that the upfront assertion regarding the disuse yet legality of the title as it applies to Canada requires balancing, when sources clearly and equitably corroborate both notions. Can you produce any reputable references to counter this? If not within a reasonable timeframe, the tag will be removed. Quizimodo (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• It is for the person seeking that information be included to demonstrate its verifiability. Therefore Soulscanner is within his rights to place a {{nonspecific}} tag as mentioned. I am not so sure about the {{lopsided}} tag. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Be that as it may, said editor has been insistent upon including a start date which (per discourse above) is not indicated in the sources he has produced. At least the current version accommodates for this until clear citations can be provided, so the 'nonspecific' tag seems extraneous. Quizimodo (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The statement presents a monarchist POV as a fact. It links to the bottom section, in which it is hinted that it is monarchists that maintain that Dominion remains Canada's legal title. That tilts the statement in the intro towards a monarchist POV that is identified as such in the final section. I will gladly accept a statement that clearly identifies Canadian monarchists as those who hold this view. --Soulscanner (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, you have demonstrated your unwillingness or inability to properly interpret source matter. No such assertion is made that 'Dominion' as Canada's title is a monarchist POV, only that it is the title and that its retention in the constitution may provide solace to those who are not advocates of republicanism. Read the quote from Hodgetts carefully:
      • "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."
    • 'Monarchists' may be discouraged by increasing republicanism, but the removal of the title from the constitution is irrespective of that, requiring a constitutional amendment. Its authority is a given. Do you maintain that Hodgetts and Rayburn are also monarchists, if only to divert attention from your own bias?
    • Apropos, the last clause of the introduction links to the 'Canada' section only because Canada is an oddity among Commonwealth realms in this respect, being the only such prior dominion that retains 'dominion' as its title. Get with it, get over it. Quizimodo (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay. You are free to see it that way. I've made my interpretation clear, and you've made yours clear. We both see the final sentence as acceptable, but for different reasons. We've resolved the dispute about it by cleaning up the references a little and by agreeing to disagree. The dispute over the statement in the intro remains. Unless I see it qualified in some way, the tag will stay. --Soulscanner (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Please provide sourcing here to back your position. I don't see ANY. Even Admin Stifle expressed uncertainty about the 'lopsided' tags. Otherwise, it merely confirms your intent to disrupt and make some obtuse point and further demonstrates your inability to compel through rational means. End communication. Quizimodo (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • My interpretation is what it is, as is yours. --Soulscanner (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
            • That is not good enough, which is why we defer to information which we can readily verify ... as such, this does not bode well for your irreverent interpretation. Quizimodo (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Just to point out that my opinions on editorial matters like whether a tag is valid or not are only as good as any other user's. I'm just a regular user who happens to be able to block people and delete pages. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Given the ongoing edit-warring, this page is protected for a week. Please use that time to come to a consensus on what to include and how to include it. If you manage an agreement before that time, drop by WP:RFPP to request unprotection. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No extra autonomy given Canada 1867

Referenced sources given in response to request for citations clearly indicate that no extra autonomy was passed from Britain to Canada. Some editors deny this. Lets all list once how we interpret the following passages specifically in terms of whether new powers or autonomy was transfered from Britain to the federal government.

Forsey

"By the time of Confederation in 1867, this system had been operating in most of what is now central and eastern Canada for almost 20 years. The Fathers of Confederation simply continued the system they knew, the system that was already working, and working well."

• The system Forsey is referring to is [responsible government] which was attained in the 1840s. Fathers of Confederation adopted the same system. Some powers already assumed by Legislative Assembly were passed to the federal level of government. No new powers came from Britain. --soulscanner (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

===Heard ===--soulscanner (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

At its inception in 1867, Canada's colonial status was marked by political and legal subjugation to British Imperial supremacy in all aspects of government - legislative, judicial, and executive. The Imperial Parliament at Westminster could legislate on any matter to do with Canada and could override any local legislation, the final court of appeal for Canadian litigation lay with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, the Governor General had a substantive role as a representative of the British government, and ultimate executive power was vested in the British Monarch - who was advised only by British Ministers in its exercise. Canada's independence came about as each of these subordinations was eventually removed.

• What part of "colonial status" and "political and legal subjugation to British Imperial supremacy in all aspects of government" is ambiguous? Where is the "dominion status" here? "Dominion" clearly implied subjugation to the Imperial government in 1867. --soulscanner (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep rehashing the same ol’ quotes, but fail to grasp or properly interpret them. The Forsey citation proves nothing: the fact that 'responsible government' (a system of parliamentary accountability) was continued after Confederation has little to do with the fact that, at that time, Canada was reorganised into a federal state, and ... the Heard citation above contradicts another which you've provided (also by Heard): "When the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 it was granted powers of self-government to deal with all internal matters, but Britain still retained overall legislative supremacy." Read: Canada was granted powers of self-government, which it did not have previously. The prior polity did not have that order of self-government, and it also acquired more autonomy over time as each of these 'subordinations' were removed. Thus, you have not justified the relevant assertions in the article regarding Canada's autonomy, and need to do a much better job of doing so. Please provide clear, direct quotes to support assertions made. Quizimodo (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate from Forsey that those powers granted were more than the powers granted the preceding colonial assemblies. We need a reference to show they were, especially when Heard denies this this with very clear quotes. --soulscanner (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are drawing conclusions from Forsey which are not stated. The Heard references are contradictory. The burden of proof is on you to prove the assertions made, which you have not done, not on me or others to stoke it. Quizimodo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Which conclusions am I drawing? --soulscanner (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As before, erroneous ones. Quizimodo (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Be specific. Which conclusion am I drawing from Forsey that is wrong? --soulscanner (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you be specific and provide clear and direct quotations as requested: the above is insufficient.

As well, your hypocrisy is grating, deferring to Forsey in this instance, yet rejecting his assertions when you don't agree with them regarding the legality of the title, etc. Enough. I will comment next when there's reason to. Quizimodo (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have. The Heard quotes say that Canada remained subjugated to Britain. How does Forsey contradict that? What claims am I making about Forsey that are wrong? Please assume good faith and dispense with name calling. --soulscanner (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not. Heard indicates that Canada was granted powers of self-government while still remaining subjugated to Britain -- the two can coincide. Forsey makes no claim in the above passage regarding Canada's autonomy, only about the continuance of responsible government. Thus, your assumptions are erroneous.

And, coming from G2b's 'associate' (in your words), you reap what you sow. If you wish to engender good faith, edit as such, remain silent, or withdraw. Wikipedia isn't your mother. Quizimodo (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets stick to the subject. Heard clearly states that the new federation got no new powers or autonomy from Britain. Do you agree or disagree with that?

I disagree with your interpretation of the subject matter, including Heard's assertion. Quizimodo (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind me. Do you agree or disagree with Heard? --soulscanner (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Minding you aside, I neither agree nor disagree with Heard -- it is what it is. Quizimodo (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete my reference to Heard? It clearly supported that Canada was granted no new powers in 1867. --soulscanner (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion, the Forsey quote shows everything. It shows that existing self-governing powers were transfered from provincial to federal level. No new powers. Also, Responsible Government is internal self-government in the British Parliamentary tradition. Government is responsible to an elected Assembly. The existing colonies did have power to deal with internal matters. Quizimodo can give no sources that contradict this. Moreover, it was unreasonable to delete my reference to Heard and Forsey, which clearly show that the level of Responisble Government (i.e.autonomy or subjugation) the colonies lived with were the same before and after Confederation. Quizimodo has been unable to supply a for deleting the very reference and quote he requested. --soulscanner (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)