Talk:Canada Day/Archive 2

Attendance of Prince William and Duchess of Cambridge at 2011 Canada Day

Mention in the article of the presence of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at the Canada Day festivities in Ottawa in 2011 has been twice deleted now, with the rationale being that it should go because it is WP:NOTNEWS. The reasoning doesn't fit, however, since the single sentence is not presented as a news piece; it follows quite fittingly on mention of who the main players are and have been at the central Canada Day events in the national capital. This was also the first time members of the Royal Family other than the Queen and Prince Philip have presided over the ceremony, making it rather notable. (I've added a bit of detail on that fact into the article.) The sentence should be left in place. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it was presented as a news-like item prior to July 1, 2011 and was altered to merely state that the two had attended after Canada Day. I don't see how this is relevant to the article. Notable people attend Canada Day activities all the time. We don't list everyone. As for these two, I don't see the significance of this particular mention. The Queen and Prince Philip visiting in 1967 is significant for obvious reasons. I'm sure some will argue that the future heir to the throne visiting is significant and that this was an historical tour and all that but what future significance their presence here in Canada represents is speculation at best and certainly violates WP:CRYSTAL and any number of points in WP:NOT. freshacconci talktalk 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What notable people attend in that capacity other than politicians and the governor general or monarch? I don't think it would've been necessary to mention the two by name had this not been a first. But it was. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The information strikes me as WP:RECENTISM. The royal family attending Canada Day is nothing new - the fact that it was different members of the family this time around does not seem notable. More like trivia than anything else. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The information doesn't make sense in the section, unless of course you're a Canadian monarchist. However, the royal family attending Canada Day is something new. In the 144 years since Confederation, this is only the fifth time that a royal has been in official attendance. Compare that other former colonies on their national days. Compare that to Great Britain where the Queen is in attendance every year. The context is missing though. Someone unfamiliar with the royal family may not know that the prince is third second in line for the throne. They may not know that this is also the throne of Canada as well. While there are rumblings of becoming a republic, it's not nearly as loud as it is in Australia and so it may be that he will eventually be the head of Canada. So my preference would be keep and improve. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. Is there a way we can write this differently and in another area that contextualizes this without the fawning, so that a non-Canadian (and actually maybe some Canadians as well) would be able to understand it? freshacconci talktalk 15:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fawning? Incomprehensible to Canadians?

I also don't understand much of Walter's comment: Of what relevance is Canadian monarchism? What is there to compare with other former colonies? What does the Queen attend in the UK every year? What does it matter? And, most importantly, how is the sentence about William and Catherine in the wrong place? The paragraph clearly starts, about half way through, to focus on the Canada Day concert on Parliament Hill and who presides over it: typically the governor general, but also, on occasion, the monarch. I fail to see how the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall's presence - again, a first in more than one way - isn't related.

Regardless, that's not to say the wording can't be improved. Are there any suggestions? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Walter Görlitz is offering support for the statement and you still have to argue. What's not to understand about providing context so non-Canadians would understand why this is supposedly a big deal and not just a couple of over-hyped celebrities who happened to be there at that time. freshacconci talktalk 17:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I actualy think this solution is worse - taking a piece of of arguably non-notable information and then lengthening it by importing more text from Monarchy of Canada, all of which is only peripherally relevant to the subject of this article. We are talking about the attendance of two royals at one Canada Day event in one year - I'm not sure adding a lesson in Canada's constitution to the paragraph helps. I don't think the sentence is necessary, but I'd prefer it as is if that's the choice. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the sentence at all. I think it's trivial and meaningless. However, if consensus were to be reached in favour of keeping it, I agree with Walter that it needs contextualization. But I will make it clear: my preference is for the text being removed outright. freshacconci talktalk 18:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry for the rambling response earlier. Let's try it this way: who is the Queen of England in relation to Canada? Why is her presence at Canada Day celebrations any more important than any other dignitary or celebrity? Similarly, why is her grandson's presence at all important. Would we mention Paris Hilton's presence on the hill on July 1? Many Canadians know she's Canada's queen. I assume that they also know that William is the second in line, after Charles, assuming normal ascension protocol, for the throne. However Canada may become a republic before that time. So we need to explain why they're important or remove them both altogether. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry, but these two sentences put together are quite funny: "Would we mention Paris Hilton's presence on the hill on July 1? Many Canadians know she's Canada's queen.") freshacconci talktalk 19:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems nunecessary to get into everyone's role. All that needs to be expressed is that there is an official, government organised, national celebration in Ottawa, which consists of musical performances and cultural displays and is attended by any combination of the following individuals: the prime minister, the governor general, the monarch, another member of the Royal Family. Celebrities never officiate at the Ottawa ceremonies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The duke did not officiate either. He merely addressed those in attendance. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As did the Prime Minister and the Governor General. They all officiated, as in: carried out official duties; acted in an official capacity.

Is it possible to condense the last couple of sentences of the paragraph thusly: "However, the locus of the celebrations is the national capital, Ottawa, Ontario, where large concerts and cultural displays are held on Parliament Hill, with the governor general and prime minister typically officiating, though the monarch or another member of the Royal Family may also attend or take the governor general's place. Smaller events are mounted in other parks around the city and in Hull, Quebec." The remainder - the years the Queen attended, etc., could then be shifted up to the "History" section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. Both Johnston and the duke participated so he did not take the GG's place. Also, I would avoid the phrase officiated as it has other meanings in English. I would use "participated" in its place. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said "may also attend or take the governor general's place", as the Queen did last year. "Participate" is okay, but I'm not sure it puts across the official nature of these people's presence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Davies Quote

I can appreciate that the article was perhaps becoming a bit overloaded with "anti Canada day" positions, but I think that we should include the Davies quote referring to the name change. His opinion shows that opposition to the name Canada Day is not simply from cranky Conservative leaning politicians and journalists. He brings a different perspective than is typical and I think worthy of inclusion, particularly as I think it is a notable quote. We could try to flesh out the pro-Canada Day position. I don't think that we are giving undue weight to the controversy at this point, as it is one of the only really interesting/notable things about the holiday. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's good to show that different people had differing opinions on the matter of the name change, but the article is indeed (to my eyes, anyway) becoming skewed not towards the controversy itself, but the anti-change side of the controversy. There's already a quote from Andrew Coyne that criticises the name Canada Day; I'm not sure we need another from Davies. At least, I believe one quote is sufficient for now, whether it's Davies' or not (though I do prefer Coyne's because it's more contemporary). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean Andrew Cohen... although it's funny that both Andrews are both on the same train on this matter. Any rate, I think that Davies is a notable enough Canadian that it is worth including his quote, as well as Cohen's, which takes a more political stance on the issue than Davies. I'm all for including perhaps some other quotes to balance out the section, I just haven't had a chance to find interesting ones. Most of the pro-Canada day quotes are not as succinct from what I have seen. Anyway, I really don't think that we are anywhere near "information overload" on this yet, so would strongly urge inclusion of all the quotes we have now. If this name change had taken place when wikipedia existed we would no doubt have a whole article on the subject. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's enough to know that there was opposition to the name change. For historical purposes it's somewhat important, but I don't think that we should have an WP:UNDUE amount of weight on either position. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Monarchist tones

This article seems to have been absolutely saturated with british/monarchist overtones. I've removed the some of it, but the article needs to be combed over and more should be removed. It adds nothing to the article and was added by a known monarchist editor. For example: "which united three British colonies into a single country, called Canada, within the British Empire". Two references to Britain within the same sentence, neither of which add anything to the article. The fact that they colonies were British is irrelevant, and that Canada is within the british empire is also irrelevant. They have been removed. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I support these edits as described. Let's try to maintain neutrality in his article. freshacconci talktalk 21:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder how you know that Tdadamemd is a monarchist and that's why he added to the lead factual info about Canada still being part of the Empire in 1867 (well, he used the wording "a British territory called Canada", which I changed to "a single country, still within the Empire, called Canada", which even you have to admit was a less than pro-British change on my part). Regardless, the point is to make it clear that Canada wasn't independent in 1867. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. The Province of Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia were all British colonies heading into Confederation on 1 July 1867. At that time, those 3 colonies & afterwards the resulting country were within the British Empire. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The original edit, changing "country" to "British territory", is somewhat deceptive and very confusing. Canada became a Dominion, an autonomous, self-governing country within the empire. To refer to it needlessly (and there is really no point in doing so) as a "British territory" as if it were some tiny Pacific island is confusing to the reader not versed in Canadian politics and history. The status of Canada today is complex enough and we don't need to dive into these semantics in an article about a holiday, especially when a perfectly good word was being used already. As much as I want to assume good faith, there's a little bit of pointyness going on in an edit like that. "Country" is correct and less confusing, so why change it? freshacconci talktalk 01:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's best to use country. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm not sure why certain editors feel the need to mention Britain at every possible turn even when it brings unjust confusion to the main point. There is absolutely no need to mention the british empire 2 to 3 times in the same sentence except for personal biases. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been "country" since I changed it back to that in July 2010. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to mention it's within the british empire or the new version, "self-governing but not independent country". Your monarchist tones are taking away from the subject. The article isn't about the british empire or britain, or the queeen, or any of that other BS. Why not just write it like it is.

Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal statutory holiday celebrating the anniversary of the July 1, 1867, enactment of the British North America Act, 1867 (today called the Constitution Act, 1867, in Canada), which united three British colonies into a single self-governing but not independent country called Canada.[1][2][3] Originally called Dominion Day (French: Le Jour de la Confédération), the name was changed in 1982, the year the Canada Act was passed.

There is no need for all the overtones and BS. It takes away from the subject at hand. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be ok with "which united three British colonies into a single country called Canada". This is accurate and the British designation being explanatory (i.e. whose colonies were they). freshacconci talktalk 02:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree to that. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed. But it's also important that it's made clear Canada wasn't independent at confederation. Not everyone knows that, and those who aren't familiar with the subject can be easily misled into believing the opposite when the article also asserts (correctly) that July 1 is often referred to as "Canada's birthday".

UrbanNerd, drop the monarchist-pov-pushing bad faith accusation crap. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll drop the "drop the monarchist-pov-pushing bad faith accusation crap" when you stop actually halt the monarchist-pov-pushing bad faith editing. Your actually damaging articles very frequently. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Then take your accusations with all the supporting evidence you no doubt have and report me at the proper location. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately poor and biased editing is not grounds for reporting. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is; you're accusing me of at least breach of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:SOAP. It's needlessly bogging down what should otherwise be a simple, civil discussion about content. So, either take it where it where it counts or, if you know it won't hold up to community scrutiny (making it nothing more than a personal attack), knock it off completely. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The erasing of your comment was accidental. Sorry about that. freshacconci talktalk 02:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I assumed as much. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

On another note, the Canadian Encyclopedia interestingly skirts the issue somewhat: "Confederation, the union of the British North American colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Canada (Canada being an earlier 1841 union of Lower Canada and Upper Canada), was achieved 1 July 1867 under the new name, Dominion of Canada." For an article on a holiday, even Canada Day, we do want to avoid going into too much historical detail. I'm not sure how else we could indicate the status of Canada's independence (or lack of) in 1867. freshacconci talktalk 02:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "Dominion of Canada" can be contentious on Wikipedia, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't suggest using their wording, but I find it interesting that they state that it was three colonies united under one name, without really stating the status of that new entity. freshacconci talktalk 02:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've made clear why I think it's important to state the country didn't become independent. But, it may end up that I'm in the minority (of one, perhaps) with that opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I must apologize. I edited the sentence in question without first checking to see if there was a discussion here. On the substantive issue, I think it is debatable as to when Canada became independent, what independence means, and to what degree Canada was independent in 1867. That is presumably why others skirt around the issue, as Freshacconci points out. I have no issue with including the reference to the British Empire, as that is factually correct, and I prefer that approach to references to Canada's independence or lack thereof. I also have no problem with deleting the reference to the British Empire, simply referencing the union of three British colonies, and leaving discussion of Canada's imperial ties in 1867 to other articles. On balance, I prefer the second approach, but could live with the first. I do agree that we need only so many "British" references in that one sentence -- e.g. if we refer to the Empire, we need not specify that the colonies were British, etc.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

How can "Dominion of Canada", be contentious? Please elaborate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are others that will know the specific better than I do, but there have been some pretty hard-fought battles over at Canada and other articles over whether or not the country is still officially called the Dominion of Canada. As such, references to Canada as a dominion can occasionally result in re-eruptions of that battle. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

But aren't we talking about when it was formed? It was Dominion Day when I was a kid in the 60s & 70s. Not sure how this historical name can be contentious. but OK. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it would be. I'm just telling you what I think the issue is. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I see UrbanNerd has revived his dispute over the use of the term "British Empire" in the lead. The given reasoning for removal is still that the words are "irrelevant". However, as outlined above, it is relevant that Canada didn't become an independent country on 1 July 1867, and one way to express that in a brief and historically accurate manner is to state that "three colonies [united] into a single country called Canada within the British Empire." It's possible there are other ways to say the same thing. But, before even starting the exercise of finding an acceptable alternative, the question is begged: would we be doing so just to avoid the words "British Empire" and, if yes, why? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And, he's back for more. What was said by me above on 16 November 2012 still applies now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 July 2012

Canada Day is not celebrated o the day the act was actually signed in PEI. I was moved to July 1st as on the actually day, I believe in February, most of Canada was still under snow

216.8.164.189 (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In addition, please be a bit more specific on what you would like changed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the original concern was. It's not about the day anything was signed but rather the day the legislation was enacted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I've removed the edition of "within the British Empire" from the lead. I'm not sure it is needed in the lead, especially how there is a commemoration section directly below it where the same info is elaborated. I tried to remove it but of course it was re-added by everyone's favourite monarchist (no insult intended). UrbanNerd (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not quite the same, but I understand your point. The question is, how vital is that information to the phrase? Would the phrase in the lede misrepresent anything if it were removed? Is the statement supported in the article's body?

There was a discuss related to this above this current one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I made some comments in the preceeding discussion on this same subject before this new discussion was started.

To Walter's question about the need for the information about Canada's place in the British Empire after Confederation: There is no specific need for the British Empire to be mentioned; however, if there were no mention of the fact that Canada didn't become independent on 1 July 1867, readers (especially non-Canadian ones) might assume the opposite. Yes, it is explained in the "Commemoration" section; but, the lead is meant to summarise the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in the discussion 7 months ago (above), I am not hugely fussed with keeping or removing "within the British Empire". I'm not convinced by Miesianiacal's point about independence, though. As I said above, it is debatable as to when Canada became independent, what independence means, and to what degree Canada was independent in 1867. Canada in 1867 was arguably more independent in a practical sense than a number of nominally independent European states. But I do know where Miesianiacal is coming from on the independence issue, and he's not wrong either. Ultimately, I just don't see it as being particularly important to clarify Canada's governing autonomy in 1867 in the lede of an article about a holiday, especially given the murkiness of the issue. Canada Day, unlike some other national holidays, has nothing to do with independence or lack thereof. So, I lean towards deleting the words in the lede, given there is a detailed explanation later in the body of the article (but I could live with keeping them if that ends up being the consensus). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Essentially the same opinion as Skeezix1000. The statement is still not supported in the body. It stands alone in the lede. The body discusses the role of the parliament based in London, but nothing about the Empire. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

My goodness; I must not be making myself clear. The goal is not to determine here when Canada became independent. Nor is the goal to have the British Empire mentioned. The goal is to make it clear - one way or another - that Canada did not become independent on 1 July 1867. As you rightly say, Skeezix, Canada Day has nothing to do with independence, and, in that regard, is unlike other similarly named national holidays in other countries. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that uninitiated readers - especially non-Canadian ones - will be aware of the dissimilarity and, without explanation to the contrary, will therefore be likely to assume incorrectly that Canada Day is an anniversary of an independence day.

I think we're in agreement that the above needs to be given room in the article; there doesn't seem to be any dispute over the explanation given in the "Commemoration" section of how post-Confederation Canada remained under the authority of the (imperial) British parliament and government. What seems to be in question is whether or not the aforementioned should be included in the summarising lead.

My feeling is that it should be. The fact that Canada Day is not an anniversary of the attainment of independence is a pretty salient one and can be expressed very briefly, as demonstrated in the lead's present composition. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone say that it became independent? I don't see that as an argument here or in the lede. It gained some independence when it became a nation, but to deal with the full weight of Canada's political history isn't necessary here. The follow-up paragraph explains it well. Perhaps "partially-autonomous" would be a better phrase to add. Or "nation with limited parliamentary power". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's safe to assume many, especially non-Canadians, would assume Canada Day is an anniversary of the attainment of full independence from colonial rule (since that is commonly what similar holidays commemorate in other countries). The safety of that first assumption is expressed by the fact that this article already dedicates space to explain that Canada did not become fully independent on 1 July 1867.

But, we're talking specifically about the lead here. The lead's purpose is to summarise the body of the article (the "follow-up paragraph"s, as you call them). Should the lead summarise that part of the article that explains how Canada did not attain full independence at Confederation? I say yes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The name evolved over time as did our relationship with the British has changed over time. This needs to be expressed in the article - lead or not. Best to over inform then to think others will "get" the simple version. But as a Canadian i agree its overkill - yet if I were lets say a South African I may need over info to understand. Dame I am split on this one - thus will side with more info over less infoMoxy (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Reword Lead

As discussed a few times but never resolved, the lead needs to be rewritten/reworded.
1) As mentioned before the lead has a very "monarchist-tone" as provided by Miesianiacal, (No offence). Although I agree this is valuable information, crowding the lead and boring people with a history lesson which is repeated below in the "history" section is unnecessary.
2) I don't understand or agree with some editors inclusion of the french translation for every Canadian topic, however are we now to not only include a french translation but a french pronunciations ? This seems highly unnecessary on english wikipedia.

Proposed lead:
Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday commemorating the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867, which united three colonies into a single country. Originally called Dominion Day, the holiday was renamed in 1982, the year the Canada Act was passed. Canada Day observances take place throughout Canada, as well as internationally.

I don't like all of the italics, but otherwise the prose much easier to read. It leaves the historical-traditionalist, but certainly not monarchist, discussion to the article body.

As a side note, a glaring omission in the article is that many in Quebec do not celebrate Canada Day and celebrate St. Jean Baptiste instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing "monarchist" in the lead; UrbanNerd, it seems, simply confuses mention of a particular historical empire with monarchism.

As I mentioned in earlier debates on this subject, I feel it's important to make it clear in the lead, somehow, that Canada did not become independent on 1 July 1867. Saying the date celebrates the unification of "three colonies into a single country called Canada within the British Empire" achieves that goal. So, I have no issue with the edit proposed above, except for adding the words "within the British Empire" following "into a single country"; otherwise, "becoming a country" could easliy be read by the unfamiliar as becoming independent.

It's possible there are other ways to express the same thing. But, before even starting the exercise of finding an acceptable alternative, the question is begged: would we be doing so just to avoid the words "British Empire" and, if yes, why? Especially given my opening point about "British Empire" having nothing to do with monarchism; it's simply an irrefutable historical fact.

As for the French pronunciation: it is excessive and should go. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that many national days are celebrate their independence, not the least is our neighbours to the south, and understand the need to describe this in the lede. Is there a way to remove some of parenthetical comments and make the lede flow more smoothly while keeping some of that information in? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just throwing this out here: "Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday commemorating the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867, which united three colonies into a single country with limited independence from the United Kingdom."

There's still no explanation, though, as to why the words "British Empire" are to be censored. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What if we were to move the date earlier.

Canada Day is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday celebrated on July 1. The date commemorates the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867, which united three colonies into a single country with limited independence from the United Kingdom. Originally called ...

I don't know if that helps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with Miesianiacals proposed wording. Minus the UK bit which belongs in the history section. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Lead reworded. Excessive historic information moved to history section. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

ummm.... I don't want to stir up trouble, but haven't you just implemented revised wording that exactly avoids the issue that was being discussed? the entire dispute was about the "UK bit", so it seems against the spirit of compromise to simply go ahead with a version that doesn't mention it. For the record, I think that a bit of historical context is entirely appropriate for the lead. Canada didn't really become an independent country in 1867 and to pretend otherwise is misleading. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the dispute was mainly (for a still unknown reason) over the words "British Empire". However, all the shifting of other information around was not agreed upon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Could everyone stop editing the lead until we have consensus? I have reverted it to how it read originally (minus the reference to the French pronunciation - the removal of which appears to have consensus.) Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We do have consensus on the wording, but not the linking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I read - still outstanding is how to address the "UK bit" and whether it is needed in the lead or not. And not to further complicate things, but while I have always thought a "UK bit" was unnecessary for the lead, if we are going to have it then "with limited independence from the United Kingdom" is not great (it's ambiguous, unclear and misleading - if given the choice, I prefer the old language referencing the British Empire). Could we just say "united three colonies into a single dominion" and be done with it? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't outstanding among the three of us originally involved here. What you propose at the end there isn't sufficient as it fails to make clear what a Dominion was, thus not really addressing the need to be clear about Canada Day not being an independence day. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you think that's necessary for the lead of an article that is not about Canada's political status in the 1860s. It doesn't use the what-you-think-to-be the misleading word "country", and the reader can find out more in the article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What about "Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday commemorating the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867, which united three colonies into a single country with limited independence". I do not see the need to "British up" every Canadian article. If people want to fall asleep from a history lesson they will read the history section. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"With limited independence" is the ambiguous, unclear and misleading. Frankly, the old British Empire language was better. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I would favour "within the British Empire". I don't really see why this should be controversial: it's a fact that clearly describes what Canada's situation was at its formation. "With limited independence" is quite vague. Limited in what way? By whom? Why? "within the British Empire" gives readers a pretty quick and clear idea what the situation was without having to get bogged down in petty details (if they want, they can read on). I don't see why it should be removed from the article. Whether people like it or not, Canada was a part of the British Empire for much of its history, and it is very relevant to the celebration of its creation, since the holiday is supposed to celebrate the formation and history of the country. Whitewashing that aspect from the article removes exactly the kind of context that a curious reader might want to read about. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally agree, but should point out that nobody was suggesting whitewashing anything. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

By whitewashing I simply meant removing any specific detail, or "naming names". Not a criminal conspiracy or something like that. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I never had any problem whatsoever with the use of "within the British Empire" to communicate that Canada didn't become independent on 1 July 1867. Only one editor has ever (so far) objected to those words, on the mistaken belief that they somehow create a "very monarchist tone" (and continuing to misattribute their original insertion into the article to me). No further explanation for why "within the British Empire" should be replaced or simply removed has since been given, despite a few requests for such.

I'm also fine with the use of "with limited independence from the United Kingdom". Though, I do prefer it less, given it's just a more wordy way of saying the same thing as "within the British Empire". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone shouldn't read this page and be under the impression that Canada is some backwater British colony. This proposed lead would solve the problem by explaining what it celebrates with links to the articles, while the history section would elaborate on these topics:
Canada Day (French: Fête du Canada) is the national day of Canada, a federal holiday commemorating the Confederation of Canada on July 1, 1867. Canada Day celebrations take place throughout Canada as well as among Canadians internationally with fireworks, parades, barbecues, carnivals, picnics, concerts, political speeches and ceremonies. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Readers unfamiliar with Confederation won't know what "commemorating the Confederation of Canada" means. It's also still not clear in that proposal that independence wasn't gained on 1 July 1867. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why it links to those articles and the details are in the history section. It's important that readers aren't led to believe that the level of independence in 1867 is the same as the level of independence of today . UrbanNerd (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

References

I corrected "enacted" to "coming into force". The BNA Act was enacted on March 29, 1867. It came into force on July 1, 1867, by proclamation. Hebbgd (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC) More accurate to say Act had effect July 1, 1867. Hebbgd (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Officals

i've removed yet more monarchist rhetoric by everyones favorite monarchist editor. The fact that the queen, or a princess, or prince was in Canada during a Canada Day is of little to no importance. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As notes tend to do, it provides detail about the sentence to which it's attached; namely, "the locus of the celebrations is the national capital, Ottawa, Ontario, where large concerts and cultural displays are held on Parliament Hill, with the governor general and prime minister typically officiating, though the monarch or another member of the Royal Family may also attend or take the governor general's place." Since the monarch or another member of the Royal Family officiating alongside or in place of the governor general is a relatively rare event, listing when such took place provides readers with that information, which is exactly what an encyclopaedia is supposed to do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand you have an ENORMOUS love affair with the monarchy, but listing the years they have attended Canada is going too far. Should we list when Bryan Adams was the main performer ? It's just as important to the average Canadian. You really have to stop adding monarchist tones to every article. I'm trying to be civil here, but you are truly damaging articles. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Bryan Adams is a red herring. The sentence the note is attached to speaks about people who officiated. Bryan Adams did not ever officiate. If you'd like to expand on who's performed at Canada Day events, you can do so. Monarchism is another (very tired) red herring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the Queen came is irrelevant. The fact the Prince came is irrelevant. Plain and simple. If you would like to start an article on "Co-officiating of Canada Day Celebrations in Ottawa" that go ahead. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Who officiates at Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa is entirely relevant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an article about the celebrations in Ottawa, nor is it an article on who co-officiates the celebrations of Canada Day in Ottawa. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting the information about the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa be detelted entirely? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that who co-officiates the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa on any given year is irrelevant to this particular article. Perhaps you could start a list-article and list who co-officiates the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa year by year. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you say "This is not an article about the celebrations in Ottawa"?\

If the Ottawa celebrations are relevant (which I think they are) and, by extention, so is the information "where large concerts and cultural displays are held on Parliament Hill, with the governor general and prime minister typically officiating, though the monarch or another member of the Royal Family may also attend or take the governor general's place" (which I also think is), then so too are the atypical times when the monarch and another member of the Royal Family attended or took the governor general's place. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If your going to mention that they co-officiated the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa, then why not mention everyone who the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa ? Only you think that the Queen or Prince is somehow more relevant than many other famous people, delegates, etc. that have co-officiated. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else has officiated (definition: to act in an official capacity): the celebrations are hosted by the Government of Canada, the officials from which who attend have always been the prime minister and the governor general, sometimes along with the monarch or another member of the Royal Family or in place of the governor general. Performers are guests. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I for one see no harm in listing who officiated in which years if properly sourced, whether the GG, queen, PM, or Bryan Adams. The article is about Canada Day, for which the celebration in Ottawa has to count as the centre piece and some details about how it has historically unfolded are very relevant. Considering that the monarch is the head of state, her presence seems rather important, and I don't see how it is "monarchist" to mention that she attended various celebrations. It sheds some light on the relationship of the head of state to the country she represents. Whether you're a die hard monarchist or republican that is relevant information. Provided it isn't given undue weight, I see absolutely no problem. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, a list of the names of every person who officiated at Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa would basically be a list of every prime minister and governor general since 1958 plus the list of dates of royal attendance that UrbanNerd keeps deleting. Given that we already have a list of Prime Ministers of Canada and a list of Governors General of Canada (which I've now piped to from "prime minister" and "governor genereal", respectively, in that sentence), it seems redundant to list each one since 1958 here again. However, as the participation of royal officials is the atypical occurence, listing the dates they attended provides information not found elsewhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I gather you won't have a problem with me adding every other notable person that has co-officiated the Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa ? UrbanNerd (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

On principle, no. But, I already explained above that those people are included in List of Prime Ministers of Canada and List of Governors General of Canada, making listing them here again rather redundant. Given the ubiquitous presence of both those figures at Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa, it'd be more informational to list the times either wasn't there, if any. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Peregrine, I think, offers a common sense and sensible approach. I fail to see how mentioning the participation of a country's head of state in their own national celebrations is somehow pushing a political agenda. I also fail to see how adding pertinent information related to Canada's monarchy is something to be disparaged, since Canada is a monarchy as a statement of fact. If Canada were a republic and someone was constantly adding monarchical references, then I could see the problem, but certainly not when monarchical information is being added about a monarchy. Trackratte (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop the edit warring

Neither UrbanNerd nor Miesianiacal are new editors. If you can't discuss the changes that need to be made I will request a page lock in the state the page was in before the editing began. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would encourage you to do so. UrbanNerd doesn't seem to believe the WP:BRD cycle applies to him. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

History section

The user UrbanNerd/Po' buster recently deleted sourced material from the "History" section, along with undoing some other editors' minor additions and changes. The edit summary given was "Ridiculous additions". Given that "ridiculous" is an entirely subjective classification of the additions, UrbanNerd can hopefully here give a more detailed explanation as to the exact nature of the problem with the additions, as he sees it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You added material which was filled with british trash as usual. I reverted. Now please follow BRD, and not start yet another edit war. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, the only substantial content additions that were made were describing how the day was celebrated in 1867 and about the first government organised celebrations, which were sourced from one of Canada's national newspapers. Whether you like the content or not is another issue, but I don't see how this is 'rediculous British trash', unless I'm missing something. What exactly do you disagree with? trackratte (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The material added was sourced and more than relevant. How it is "british trash" is beyond me, as it dealt in large measure with fairly straightforward and relevant information about the celebration of Dominion/Canada Day.... ie... ringing of the bells in 1867, Diefenbaker's changes etc... IMO UrbanNerd is behaving in an uncivil way, and not in good faith. It's not good enough to simply assert that sourced additions are "nonsense" without any further elaboration. That kind of attitude will poison the atmosphere and is not conducive to reaching a workable consensus. You're citing WP:BRD but skipping the "discuss" part, which misses the whole point. Please, there's room for rational disagreement, but at the moment this seems to be a simple grudge match on the part of urbanNerd. I'd say that these edits constitute vandalism unless UrbanNerd can explain the deletions more clearly. Please consult WP:CIVIL for a refresher. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The additions are perfectly fine. I think they should stay as they round out the article well. Calling a good faith addition to an article 'trash' is a rather clear violation of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"British trash" is even more incomprehensible than "ridiculous additions". An emotive reaction to material isn't justification for its removal; a rational explanation of the supposed problem with the material is required in order to find an amenable resolution. Since most people don't seem to understand what issue you find with the material, either, a more robust elucidation is required from you (though absent your usual personal abuse would be preferred). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This editor again - never seen anyone with such a reputation still editing here - just revert when you seem him edit without though. Changes are just fine.Moxy (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, may I remind you this is not the place to gossip with the ladies, please keep talk on topic. thanks. Once again Miesianiacal believes that BRD doesn't apply to him and he can add his usual british trash to every article and when reverted just reinstates and starts an edit war. I have never seen an editor with such a enormous bias and such disregard for BRD still editing here. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree not the place - but you have a real problem here - people simply don't listen to you anymore even if your right because of your reputation. Best to simply move on when you see edits by people you have conflicts with.Moxy (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canada Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100621051355/http://www.montrealgazette.com:80/health/Canada+Parade+organizers+bemoan+lack+political+support/3164763/story.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Canada+Parade+organizers+bemoan+lack+political+support/3164763/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See also

The see also section had a single Canadian celebration listed, Canada Day Countdown in New Brunswick. Apparently it's some small town concert they put on for Canada Day. I removed it from the see also section for multiple reasons.

1. Having a partial list of celebrations for every town across the country isn't encyclopedic.
2. The article mentioned does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events
3. The article mentioned does not cite any sources.
4. This Canada Day page shouldn't be used for every small town across Canada to promote their local concerts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.246.209 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia than have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy thoroughly and see if you would like to nominate it for deletion. However, as it sits right now, it is an article about the subject Canada Day and should be included in "See also" as such. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

So I gather you would have no problem with me adding several more Canada Day concert related articles to the see also ? 64.229.246.209 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see a policy based reason for this link to be in the see also section here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see a policy-based reason for it to be removed either, but if anon knows of other articles about Canada Day celebrations, then we should probably move them all to a section and add prose to describe this clearly notable activity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And how is an article on a concert with no notable headliners, that does not cite any sources, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events a "clearly notable activity" as you describe ? I'm very curious. 64.229.246.209 (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

64.229.246.209, Nominate it for deletion then if you think so! No one has a problem with it except you. Maybe instead of complaining about it, you should try and clean it up? As it stands, there is no reason why it should be removed as it has a wiki article and is on the subject of Canada Day. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is "you" is quotes? Did you say it out loud while typing it ? not sure what you were going for there. Also no need for exclamation marks! Not sure why you're getting so upset over a non-issue. Perhaps Walter and Vaseline should read a few articles on civility to other editors and article ownership. I'm just trying to improve the article. Looks like i ran into the town sheriffs. 64.229.246.209 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't care whether the article gets deleted or not. That isn't what I'm trying to do. You two are doing a very good job at deflecting and avoiding the issue I'm trying to fix. I am saying the article that is linked is not worthy of being linked to an article as important and notable as this one. It isn't my job to go fix that article, improve it, or get it deleted. I'm trying to improve THIS article. Deleting trash links is part of said improvement. 64.229.246.209 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's exactly that, a non issue. That is why I used the '!' since it is fairly annoying to argue over this. Also, I used italics not quotes, and it is used to put emphasis on the word 'you'. We are in no way displaying page ownership, it is merely the fact that an article related to this one belongs in the See also section. It's not anyone's job to anything on wiki, but if it does have a wiki page, it is deemed notable unless nominated for deletion to prove other wise. So if you do not want to delete it and Walter and I certainly won't do it, you're the only one who has a problem with that article, hence you could have it nominated for deletion so it wouldn't be included with this article. Until proven it isn't notable by deletion or such, it should belong in this article as it is part of the subject matter. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You're logic is a bit breathtaking. And for the record you are absolutely practising article ownership traits. You couldn't stand that an Anon dare edit "your" page. You also have a history of bullying and edit warring which you only recently a few days ago admitted to while you were engaged in yet another edit war. Besides all of this User:Dbrodbeck seems to agree that it has no place in your article. If it is such a non-issue for you then why not just let a simple link to an unsourced, out of place article be taken off ? 64.229.246.209 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. Believe what you want, I can't make you do anything. For the record, I never admitted to anything, what happened a few days ago at a different page was a misinformed anon since the other anon didn't understand the convention of European dating systems for football matches. Not bullying and not edit warring, he was misinformed and he realized it after we discussed. This is besides the point anyway! Yes, I used an exclamation mark. WP:JUSTDROPIT. Dbrodbeck seems to be neutral at this point. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel, I mean yeah though it seems odd to put in this one thing. But really, this is not a hill I wish to die on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that you just drop it Vaseline. It is a minor change that improves the article. Let your ego let this one go. Maybe I can see if an admin could look into this if needed. And maybe a few other things at the same time. 64.229.246.209 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

the article is not improved by its removal. It standard policy to link to tangentially related topics in see also sections. It therefore makes sense to leave it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Always with the retaliation eh? First with the user talk template and now with the "just drop it"? Good stuff. Who are you to say it improves the article? I am not saying it wouldn't improve it and I'm not saying it will, however, since it was there to begin with we are going through the discussion per WP:BRD and as of now we have one user which is neutral, one which is opposed, and two which are for. Unless more people chime up, this discussion favours keeping it. I don't see how an admin will help (they have better things to do), this is something that should be taken to the talk page to discuss locally. But hey, it's your prerogative. It has nothing to do with my ego, I can assure you I won't lose sleep over this :) Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

AFD

In other news, I have AFDd Canada Day Countdown. Please everyone weigh in [1]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The article of discussion has now been deleted. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canada Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418061228/http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/QueenElizabethII.html to http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/QueenElizabethII.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603155543/http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2002/070402/ncity.html to http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2002/070402/ncity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Misnomer

I see a little editwar over "This is a misnomer, as Canada Day is the anniversary of only one important national ". I too agree this wording is messed up. Even a 3rd grader can tell us Canada day is the celebration of the formation of a new country. Why are we even mentioning all the other legal stuff that has nothing to with this day. Calling BS on this.--Moxy (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Adam Dodek (2016). The Canadian Constitution. University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-4597-3505-7.
• Big Book of Canadian Celebrations Gr. 1-3. On The Mark Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-1-77072-763-2.

Don't know if the word "misnomer" is the best word. I think the article is quite clear however that Canada Day exists to commemorate and celebrate Confederation which occurred on 1 July 1867 and marked the creation of the Dominion of Canada, and since its renaming to a more generic "Canada Day" (akin to a "US Day" instead of "Independence Day" has become a more general national celebration. Stating that it is "Canada's Birthday" is an inexact genteelism.

Now any discussion on the "birth" of Canada is likely to devolve into a simple debate on what the word "Canada" means, is it a nation (social entity), a state (political entity), a country (geographic entity), or something else? After all, Dodek states in his book that "'Canada' as a political entity consisted of Canada East...and Canada West" (as of 1840), and that "Canada existed for thousands of years" but at the same time "was born on July 1, 1867", precisely because he makes the distinction between Canada as a nation and country, and Canada as a state. For example, a country is simply "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory" which of course Canada clearly was prior to Confederation, whereas a state, defined as "nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government" did not come about until Confederation where Canada became to be considered a semi-autonomous political community within the British Empire. And of course as a wholly independent state as of repatriation.

Perhaps removing the loaded word "misnomer" and sticking to the facts is a better way forward.

I made a slight tweak to the phrasing within the mainspace: "Although Canada existed prior to 1867, within both the French and British empires, Canada Day is often informally referred to as "Canada's birthday", particularly in the popular press. However, the term "birthday" can be seen as an oversimplification as Canada Day is the anniversary of only one important national milestone on the way to the country's full independence, namely the joining on July 1, 1867, of the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into a wider British federation of four provinces (the colony of Canada being divided into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec upon Confederation)." trackratte (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Better .....added - Trevor Harrison; John W. Friesen (2015). Canadian Society in the Twenty-First Century, 3e: An Historical Sociological Approach. Canadian Scholars’ Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-55130-735-0.--Moxy (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Canada Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209071528/http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/constitution/constitution13_e.html to http://www1.canadiana.org/citm/themes/constitution/constitution13_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215180858/http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/historical/territorialevolution/1867/1 to http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/historical/territorialevolution/1867/1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628214610/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1153724d-9877-48af-9608-adef9a42d9cf to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1153724d-9877-48af-9608-adef9a42d9cf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306130913/http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca/~HeritageSaintJohn/CorporateSeal/heraldry.htm to http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca/~HeritageSaintJohn/CorporateSeal/heraldry.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706203616/http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=b3903533-2a8d-40d7-8bc9-d718d9fd9367 to http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=b3903533-2a8d-40d7-8bc9-d718d9fd9367
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101025405/http://www.rsscanadaimmigration.com/en/citizenship/citizenshipoath.php to http://www.rsscanadaimmigration.com/en/citizenship/citizenshipoath.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628214622/http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/insight/story.html?id=069c09a6-3deb-4246-8e2e-a7d5324b8b26 to http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/insight/story.html?id=069c09a6-3deb-4246-8e2e-a7d5324b8b26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819084823/http://www.canadadaylondon.com/default.asp to http://www.canadadaylondon.com/default.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=1972
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130701061209/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/29/allan-levine-the-evolution-of-july-1/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/29/allan-levine-the-evolution-of-july-1/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=26cb959a-54c2-46e9-9aa2-d5738fae183b&k=22894
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110135911/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=849548fc-39c5-4714-964f-089d6866cff4 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=849548fc-39c5-4714-964f-089d6866cff4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812000945/http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/h-5/whole.html to http://canlii.org/ca/sta/h-5/whole.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=26cb959a-54c2-46e9-9aa2-d5738fae183b&k=22894

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)