This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Canadian Confederation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 1, 2007, July 1, 2008, July 1, 2012, July 1, 2016, and July 1, 2019. |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Alaney2k:I've reviewed the definition of "natural born citizen" in the Citizenship Act of 1946, ss. 4 and 5. I've not found any exclusion for indigenous peoples. The key phrase is s. 4(a): "4. A person, born before the commencement of this Act, is a natural-born Canadian citizen:-- (a) if he was born in Canada or on a Canadian ship and has not become an alien at the commencemnt of this Act;". Section 5 sets out a similar test for those born in Canada after the commencement of the Act. Can you point me to the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from citizenship which you referred to in your recent note? Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 03:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the suggestion that the use of quotation marks around Status Indians was considered "scare quotes". I was using them to mark a defined term, just like quotation marks are used elsewhere in the same article to indicate that "Confederation" and "Fathers of Confederation" were defined terms. A number of other words and phrases are indicated in quotation marks, such as "manifest destiny", "kingdom", "premature", "pretentious", "founding a great British monarchy", "liberal order", "legislative vacuum", "Fathers", "Union" and "federation". By a quick search, the article has 152 quotation marks, so 76 pairs of quote marks. Are those "scare quotes" and should all be removed? If not, what is the objective test of "scare quotes"? Does it just depend on the subjective reaction of a particular editor? Many of those examples are to indicate defined terms, just like "Status Indians". How else does one indicate a defined term, if not by quotation marks? That is particularly the case when "Status Indian" is a term with a particular legal meaning in Canada; why can we not use quote marks for that particular legal term? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 17:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
We've been having a debate on the short description, which in turn has opened a debate on how to describe this article. My preferred description would be: "Formation of Canada in 1867". I think that accurately summarises the lead sentence to the article, and is well under the 40 character guideline for short descriptions: WP:SD40. I don't think it is appropriate to use the Province of Canada as being identical to Canada as created by the Confederation process. The whole tenor of this article is that three different BNA colonies came together to form a new polity, and the short description should match the content of the article. The distinction between the Province of Canada, which ceased to exist on July 1, 1867, and the new Canada which came into existence on July 1, 1867, needs to be maintained. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 00:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)