Talk:John A. Macdonald

message: An issue has arisen about the creation of Ontario and Quebec in 1867.  It is not the case that Canada East and Canada West were turned into Quebec and Ontario.  Rather, the old Province of Canada entered into union with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and in the process was split into Quebec and Ontario.  The relevant sections are sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution Act, 1867.  There is no mention of Canada East or Canada West in the Constitution Act, 1867, nor in the predecessor legislation, the Union Act, 1840. They were simply administrative regions in the Province of Canada, without their own legislatures. All local laws were passed by the Parliament of the Province of Canada. The reference in this article therefore should be to Quebec and Ontario being formed from the old Province of Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct  Province of Canada was created by the Act of Union 1840 ..replaced the separation of the old Upper and Lower Canada or newly named East-West .--Moxy 🍁 15:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Province of Canada was split into Quebec and Ontario 

message: I cannot find any reliable source supporting the claim that John A. was a KCMG. Many sources cite KCB in 1867, which later (in 1884 according to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography) was upgraded to GCB, but no mention to St. Michael and St. George. He is also not in the list of Canadian members of the order (where you can find Tupper and Abbot but the only Macdonald is Donald Alexander). Can anybody shed a light on this issue? --Deinocheirus (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by an IP years ago. I've removed it. DrKay (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  KCMG 

message: The Dominion of Canada has never been a confederation.
It has always been a federation specifically aimed at absorbing anything non WASP.
Read the definition of both words.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.103.35 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That has generally been the term used for Canada. Most if not all of the sources use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederation vs federation. 

message: I see this is a FA that you had promoted and notice a recent page move. Wanted to check if the page move was appropriate and if you had seen it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it but it looks completely circular to me., can you explain what you were doing here?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: How is this a controversial edit? It is going on, even in Kingston, Macdonald's "hometown". I consider your reverts to be 3RR. Please justify. Alaney2k (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that it is WP:DUE in the lead given the scope of the article. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it follows as an outcome of the criticism levelled against Macdonald. It's only one sentence, not too much to have mentioned and giving it too much weight. Alaney2k (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The legacy section is large. The lead is a summary. Although your addition was one sentence, there are already two negative aspects and one positive aspect. That is enough given the scope of this FA. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree with Vaselineeeeeeee. The lede is balanced as it stands. It gives the positive and the negative. No major change is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

text: The list of removals, etc is getting a bit long so I've tried to consolidate them to the places actually associated with Macdonald. Possibly there is another article they can be fully set out in. My thought is that if they are not notable monuments per WP:GNG and are not from a place Macdonald either lived in or represented in parliament, we probably do not need to mention them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statues toppling, defaced and removed 

message: I'm afraid I did not understand your rationale for removing the PC.  I reviewed the archived talk page you cited and didn't see anything on point.  Could you elaborate, please?  Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two issues there. First, the size of the postnoms, which was addressed in the page I cited. Second, the PC and Rt Hon. Either The Rt Hon is used as a prefix or PC is used as a suffix, but not both together. Hope this clears things up. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m still not getting it, sorry. Why is there a limit on the number of title/honourifics that can be used? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply convention (in the real world and on Wikipedia) that you only use Rt Hon before the name or PC after, otherwise you are indicating the honour twice. The only exception is peers who are also Privy Councillors, as the honorific Rt Hon is used for peers as well as Privy Councillors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this is British practice only. In Canada PC is the first post-nominal after the name and always included. Atchom (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first off, a rule about usage that is tied to the peerage doesn't have any application in Canada.  But second, I'm afraid Necrothesp is making a factual error.  Using Rt Hon and PC is not "indicating the honour twice", because there are two different honours here.  John A. was Rt Hon because he was sworn of Her Majesty's Privy Council in Britain.  He was PC because he was sworn of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.  Those are two separate bodies, indicated by the two separate honorifics. That difference was indicated in the links to Right Honourable and to PC, which Necrothesp appears not to have read before deleting. I see no reason why the British honorific should prevent the usage of the Canadian honorific for a completely separate position, so I will restore it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've restored the PC link as it was prior to the edit, following the GCB.  You mention that the PC always comes first.  Is that the case even for a personal honour such as a knighthood?  I don't know what the rules of precedence for honorifics should be, so please fix it if I've got it wrong. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rt Hon and PC 

message: Hi  and page watchers: I have reviewed this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review and improve articles promoted to featured article status before 2016. I think this article is in great shape, and I conducted a copyedit of this article while doing my review. I also made some changes to the article, which are noted below:
*I did a copyedit of the article. Since this article is long, I also tried to remove unnecessary or off-topic prose. Please review my edits and ensure that I did not inadvertently change the meaning of anything. If someone is returned to the article, please note it below, but also be aware that I might subsequently ask, "Why is it important for someone reading Macdonald's biography to know this information?"
*I did a huge trim of the Legacy section: It is hard with a controversial and infamous figure like Macdonald to determine what should stay in this section. I decided to stick with three themes: paragraph 1 is things named after Macdonald, paragraph 2 is his statues and their removals, and paragraph 3 is commentary on his policies and the removal of his biography by various groups. I am happy to discuss this section further below. 
*I put all dates in mdy format, per the hatnote at the top. I also separated the sources used in the article from the further reading to solve HarvRef errors. 
*I suggest that interested readers look at the sources in the further reading section and use them in the article. I think some higher-quality sources can be used to replace lower-quality sources used in the article. 
Those are my notes. Feel free to ping me if you have any responses or questions. I also encourage editors to join the work at WP:URFA/2020 to help review older featured articles, or mark this article as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020B if you think it meets the featured article criteria. Z1720 (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: I request the change of grammar of: "downtown" instead of "in downtown", because downtown is already its own significance as the placement of the place is down-town. 64.114.222.205 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I'm assuming you mean "in downtown" in the last paragraph of #Professional prominence, 1837–1843 (the sentence being ), in which case "in" is grammatically correct, as "in downtown Toronto" is a prepositional phrase and it doesn't make sense if you drop the preposition. If there's another usage I'm missing please reopen the request.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 22:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022 

message: I feel like you're burying the lead. The man attempted to commit cultural genocide against dozens of nations, yet it isn't even mentioned until the fourth paragraph. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if you look up this page, you will see that those  negative aspects of Macdonald's career have been discussed and consensus reached in how to deal with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cultural genocides 

message: Why is he referenced as Macdonald if he was born Mcdonald?  Minilammas (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMMONNAME--"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I am not familiar with every policy of the English Wikipedia yet so I didn't know. But thanks again for answering and correcting me. Minilammas (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just by way of background, the "Mc/Mac" prefix in Scottish and some Irish names can be very fluid, depending on the time period and the person's own family background.  A "Mc" name can be spelt "Mc", or "Mac", or sometimes even "M' ", and it may be referring to the same person in all three spellings.  It's only in the 20th century, in my experience, that the spelling of the Mc names solidified within families.  Since John A. was born in the early 19th century, when literacy rates weren't as high as they are now, it's quite possible that his family spelt it different ways at different times.  Or even that the minister who did the baptism mis-spelt it on the church's baptismal records and no-one noticed at the time, because the family emigrated to Upper Canada shortly afterwards. What is clear is that in Canada, he himself consistently used "Macdonald" (ac, lower-case d) throughout his political career, so Wikipedia uses that, as Wehwalt explains. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: In the intro, in the sentence where it says William Lyon Mackenzie King served longer, please add a footnote that King did not serve consecutively. 2600:100C:A211:73E1:4973:FEAD:D6F4:620 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point as Macdonald's tenure was also in nonconsecutive terms, and King's longest term was longer than Macdonald's longest (13 years to 12).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request 

message: Change "On June 18, 2021, following the discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School" 
to "On June 18, 2021, following the alleged discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School" 2001:56A:7A09:E00:AD06:9F6A:79F9:F864 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The source at the end of the sentence supports the current wording. DrKay (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2024 

message: Hey, there's an error on this page. The Red River Rebellion doesn't exist, it's a misnomer of two separate conflicts; the Red River Resistance, which was before Manitoba officially became part of Canada and was fought at and near the Red River Settlement which is now named Winnipeg; and the Northwest Rebellion at Batoche. This conflict was also led by Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont, but 15 years later, after Riel's exile.
Red River wasn't a rebellion because it wasn't part of Canada yet. 170.253.105.132 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red River RESISTANCE