Latest comment: 2 months ago19 comments5 people in discussion
I need some help concerning the infobox at General Assembly of Nova Scotia (where I think I kinda butchered it & have since reverted) & other provincial general assemblies, with complicated histories. Who's sovereign in each provincial general assembly? The monarch, the lieutenant governor or both? Is there consistency among the provinces or none, on this matter? GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The provincial legislatures are generally constitutionally defined as consisting of the Lieutenant Governor of the province and the legislative assembly. (This is different to the composition of the Parliament of Canada, which is defined as the King, Senate, and House of Commons.) For example, section 69 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states: "There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and of One House, styled the Legislative Assembly of Ontario." Very similar wording is used for Quebec (Constitution Act, 1867), Alberta[1], Saskatchewan[2], and Manitoba[3]. (BC and the four Atlantic provinces all had pre-existing legislatures that were continued when they became a province, so I haven't checked those ones.)
I think saying that the legislature consists of the legislative assembly and the "LG (acting in the name of the King)" is more reflective of the actual constitutional structure than saying the legislature consists of the "King (as represented by the LG)".
As for whether the legislature and legislative assembly articles should be merged, that would probably be fine, and might reduce confusion by clearly explaining everything in one place like at Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I note that Legislative Assembly of British Columbia currently says that the LG is part of the Legislative Assembly, which is incorrect; the LG and the Legislative Assembly together make up the Legislature.--Trystan (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Moxy: & @Trystan:, I've added the "The King in Right of..." to the infoboxes of the general assemblies of British Columbia, Nova Scotia & Newfoundland and Labrador, to bring consistency among the nine existing pages. Are these additions correct? GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
My preference would be to standardize all the provincial legislature infoboxes to reflect the actual constitutional language, which would mean stating in the text and infobox that the Lieutenant Governor is a component of the legislature. The text of the article can explain that the LG assents to legislation in the name of the King. (Here are the relevant statutes for PEI and NS to add to the list in my post above.)--Trystan (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would also disagree with getting rid of the Legislature articles, because that is the legislative body. The Legislative Assemblies, by themselves, cannot pass a law. Better to use the term from the Constitution, that each province has a Legislature composed of the Lt Gov and the Assembly, rather than get rid of the Legislature article and create an incorrect assumption that the Legislative Assembly is the legislature. (Note that in Quebec, the terms are the Parliament of Quebec and the National Assembly, rather than Legislature and Legislative Assembly, but it's functionally the same; the Parliament of Quebec is composed of the Lt Gov and the National Assembly.) My preference is always to stick as close as possible to the language of the Constitution. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the expression "king in right of ..." is appropriate in the LG and legislature articles. It's my understanding that "crown/king/His Majesty in right of <jurisdiction>" is used in legal proceedings when more than one jurisdiction is involved, or to distinguish provincial crown land from federal, and so on. But it's an abstract legal concept not a person, and it's not correct to call Charles III "king in right of BC". His only Canadian titles are King of Canada and Head of the Commonwealth. But I'm not a lawyer, so set me straight if I'm wrong. Indefatigable (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Indefatigable. I’ve generally only seen the term « in right of » used in land titles, contracts, and the style of cause for court cases, to distinguish the government entity that is involved. It’s not a title, but a clarification that the king of Canada is acting in right of a particular government.
I think all of the legislatures should refer to the Lt Gov, since that is how they are defined in their constituent document.
For example, the fully elected BC Legislature was created by the provincial Constitution Act, enacted by the BC Governor and Legislative Council in 1871, in anticipation of joining Confederation. Section 6 of the Act provides that legislation can be passed by the Governor and the new Legislative Assembly. See: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/hstats/hstats/1799836107
I will do some digging, but I’m pretty sure that none of the Atlantic provinces constitutent docs referred to the Crown as part of the colonial legislatures. Those legislatures were established by the royal commissions to the governors of each colony, directing them to establish legislative bodies, with the governor being part of the legislative process. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, an editor recently changed the IPA pronunciation for “Regina” on the article page. Could someone who is familiar with IPA take a look at it? The current pronunciation has been stable for quite some time, so I don’t know if the change is correct? (There have been previous edits by non-Canadians who think “that can’t be right!” Is it is. Really.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was changed from /rɪˈdʒaɪnə/ to /rəˈdʒaɪnə/, the difference being the weak vowel in the first syllable. It doesn't matter much - Canadian English speakers wouldn't notice this difference, in fact I think very few English speakers worldwide would notice. The vowels in first and third syllables are the same, so /ə/ is a better choice. In Canadian English, we have only one kind of schwa in our phonemic model. Indefatigable (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The Youtube channel for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario seems to have put most, if not all, of their videos under a compatible Creative Commons license. This includes all question periods and member statements. Just posting this here in case anyone wants to add images to Ontario MPP articles that don't have photos. I've already done a few. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've just added about 10 more. I'm pretty sure the articles of all current Ontario MPPs now have an image. If not, please lmk. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!01:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could you help to disambiguate the hundreds of links to Canadian electoral districts? It is sometimes unclear whether the federal or provincial district is the intended link and they now point to disambiguation pages. Examples include:
There are probably more on this list. It is almost always better, for the reader, to link to the specific article rather than the dab page, but if the dab page is the intended link then the guideline at WP:INTDAB should followed. Any help appreciated.— Rodtalk07:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Names of Wikipedia articles for old Canadian court cases
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Could somebody take a look at Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844? I have deep suspicions that it's an outright hoax, but want to get a second opinion before taking it to MFD.
The article claims that there was an unsuccessful rebellion in 1844, which was covered up by the British and not declassified until 2014 — but firstly, there's absolutely no coverage of any such thing being "revealed" in 2014 at all, and I don't just mean it's absent from the article, I mean it's in a state of total failure to exist even after extensive checks of databases. But even more importantly, one of the only two sources cited in the article is a 2018 reprint of a book that was originally written in 1905 — or 113 years before this "event" was "declassified", so how could William B. Munro possibly have known about it? — and even more importantly, Munro's article actually features an offsite link to a complete readable copy of that very book, which I checked and rather unsurprisingly failed to find verification of anything this article says there either.
I checked the Munro book on Internet Archive. I searched for "LaPlante", "Scott", "Carter"; "Douglas"; "Peterborough"; "Scugog"; and "1844". No hits for any of the narrative in the draft article. Plus, if there was a battle north of York (now Toronto) in 1844, with cannon from a "crashed British ship", there is no way that could be hushed up. There were active journalists and newspapers. I would say it's entirely fictional. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The following year, in 1771, Jens Haven, his new bride, two other married couples and eight single men founded the first permanent Moravian settlement in Labrador’s north coast. They chose the Inuit gathering area known as Nuneingoak as the site of their new home and named the station “Nain.” Nain was the first Christian mission for the Inuit in Canada.
All of them really since they are all being targeted. The one I am looking at is the one about the gravesites, which... is pretty close to unspeakable, but I noticed tonight that the one about the Kamloops school has also been getting hit really hard. Maybe "less subtly" is the wording I am looking for.Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I came back here to point out the history at [4], the example I am most familiar with, but I see you have already found the article. Do not believe claims of consensus. (see history). There is some vile stuff at Kamloops Indian Residential School. I have requested page protection there. Elinruby (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It looks like some anons have axes to grind, talking points to spew, and vandalism to perform, based on a quick check of the Canadian residential schools history.
It's not all anons, is the problem, although a lot of what I see at the Kamloops school page is IPs. I can ask for that page to be protected, and any others that people notice. The guy who ... I don't think I am allowed to describe what he did -- but the guy who just rewrote the gravesites article is currently at AE for doing the same thing at Hunter Biden's laptop so that might take care of that, maybe. I'll do an RfPP for the Kamloops school article right now though.
latest round of attacks was three weeks ago so it doesn't look good. [5] I am going to try anyway based the premise that it is exhausting to rewrite these articles over and over again. But this has been going on since they found those graves in Kamloops. Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Moxy:Daniel Case just ec-protected the Kamloops residential school article, but that is far from the only problem in the topic. And there are editors with accounts actively working to add denialism in. In keeping with your feedback I will move the western standard question and the dorchester review question into their own sections, in order to break this into easier-to-grasp pieces. But all of this is about residential school denialism.Elinruby (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Moxy: There is also a link to The Dorchester Review (again!) in the lede of the Kamloops residential school article. It needs to be deprecated imo, at least for this topic, but first it needs to be discussed, so I have added an item about it to the RSN post. RL is calling me. Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This talk and the other talk are so convoluted its hard to understand what you're trying to get done. Are you saying Professor Jacques Rouillard is some sort of quack....or you just don't like where the statements comes from as in the publication?Moxy🍁 01:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Moxy: Rouillard is apparently a retired professor of labour movement history. I am saying that there have been repeated and very very persistent efforts to edit denialism into residential school articles. He is frequently cited as is Kenney. I am also saying that there are 3 or 4 sources that repeatedly get cited in these efforts. I am furthermore saying that massive amounts of meticulously cited material is being removed in these articles, at least in the one you were just looking at, to support the narrative that the graves are a hoax or...(insert patronizing remark about Indians here). So the school on Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc land in Kamloops became Kamloops Indian Residential School on the lands of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation and later in the section Kamloops Indian Residential School. 87 instances of this stuff. Rosanne Casimir is no longer the Kúkpi7 but the Chief. And that's just the MoS part. And on *her* page I just found another statement that there is no proof that these graves contain bodies, misleadingly cited to the Globe and Mail. Since this will probably have to be its own RSN post, help.
Bottom line the logic seems to be that if these First Nations refuse to dig up Grandma, they must not be telling the truth.
And I haven't said this yet, but the people doing worst damage are 1) all saying the same thing and 2) very conversant with wikipedia policies. The removal of all indigenous names that I was agreeing with the IP about on the talk page about is within policy but still results in an overuse of the colonial terms. This is affecting discourse on the subject. The top Google seach result for "kamloops residential school graves" is currently No evidence of ‘mass graves’ or ‘genocide’ in residential schools at one of the sources in question. This is new and in my opinion due to the last "rewrite" of that article. I am not sure what dog the Fraser Institute has in this race, but it definitely does seem to have one and at a minimum more eyes on these articles would be really nice. Think Bucha Massacre. I know you were there; I saw you. This seems like a very similar thing. Elinruby (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or maybe I am wrong and we as a country hallucinated the whole thing. I would be glad to hear that, but I don't actually think it's so Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
sorry, I assumed you were familiar with the issue. The answer to your question is "too many to list here all over again, please see RSN." Also recent ANI titled "Riposte97: time sink", which extensively discussed sourcing in the residential school topic area Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
We're going to need a few more eyes on these topics I agree.... We have new enthusiastic.... but learn as you go instead of editors familiar with the topic.Moxy🍁 23:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 minutes ago4 comments3 people in discussion
We are going to need a few more editors familiar with our residential school situation to make sure the editor here, although enthusiastic and seeming well intentioned (although others have expressed a different view) is dominating these articles. They are clearly not familiar with Canadian sources or any academic sources on the topic..... although all can contribute the sensitive nature of this topic requires some basic knowledge and understanding of the sources that are reliable. Good example of the the time sink others have been dealing with can be seen at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#2021 Canadian church burnings. I think I should step away for a bit after my less than cordial last response to them see here. Moxy🍁 21:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{u|Moxy}{ Yeah it was less than cordial but I am more concerned about the aspersion-laden inappropriate canvassing here. But fine. I will go back to re-adding journal references removed in the recent gutting of the articles. You can go on believing that children did not die of tuberculosis in residential schools as long as you stop interfering with that being restored to the article.Elinruby (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just odd replies all the time with walls of OR " children did not die of tuberculosis in residential schools " is simply out to lunch if you belive anyone would say this. The report says "24 percent of all native residential school students had died of tuberculosis". Moxy🍁 11:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
