Talk:Confederation

message: I find this article extremely butchered.    Looking at this page, the definition of what is a Confederacy is ridiculously vague.    It's completely indistinguishable from a Federation.  Mind trying to clean it up?   - Kade 00:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeez. 

message: Was Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a confederation or federation ? Having common parliament and foreign policy but separate armies ? Lysy 19:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly I know this discussion which clearly states that there was a common foreign policy and where you're the only person who thinks there wasn't, while not having any grounds to support these claims. Lysy 20:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you. By the way, whay are you signing your statements with all those different names ? Lysy 21:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know what you tried to tell me now. I simply asked what is the reason you're signing your statements with those fictious names ? Is it supposed to confuse your opponents ? Lysy 21:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I cannot answer that question beacause I don't understand what is "tutejszy". You'll need to help me here. Lysy 00:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, let's get back to the original question by Lysy: how would you (I mean the wikipedians, not the multi-faced anon) call a state with common parliament, head of state and foreign policy yet with separate armies and offices? Halibutt 08:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Here's an idea- why don't we just remove any reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from this page, so that this silly conflict can be had elsewhere, and this poor page in very sore need of improvement can be unlocked and editted?--Conwiktion 03:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

message: Why did you protect false polish version, but not discussed (see Talk:confederation -> above) last version? 85.206.193.33 10:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  to polish "administrators" 

message: When this discussion has been resolved I'd like to note here that Canada has to be further included in the revised article. It wasn't just an event or word that can describing the amalgamation of the British North American colonies. Canada is in fact, the only surviving confederation in the world today(according to the World factbook). Though we are a parliamentary democracy, "all of Canada's sovereignty can theoretically be exercised by either the federal or provincial governments; there is nothing that one or the other government cannot do." -- Canadian law:Constitutional law (Wikibooks) 
I'm not aware of another country that has states or provinces that have that much control over their jurisdictions. Quebec is an example, of the hieght of the power in which Canadian provinces can wield. Provinces don't have to participate in federal programs or in federal positions. Once again using quebec as an example, there is very little the province is involved in federally. Most of their programs are Quebec created and they have become so "independant" there have been many sovereigntist moves there.
:Fully agree with you. Zivinbudas 17:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Canada ceased to be a Confederation with the 1982 constitution, but even then, Foreign Affairs were first considered as Ottawa's business; now, although Quebec does have some degree of autonomous foreign involvement, it has only internal powers in its own right: the Federal Government can withdraw our right to maintain a Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Snapdragonfly 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada has never been a "confederation" as that term is generally used in political science. The official name of Canada has never been "The Confederation of Canada" (as Numerousfalx wrote above). Canada is not "the only surviving confederation in the world today"; Zivinbudas misunderstood the phrase he quoted. It is true that the 1867 legal event creating the Dominion of Canada is commonly referred to as "Confederation", but that is a distinctly Canadian usage of that term; it has nothing to do with the concept of "confederation" as defined in this article. --Mathew5000 04:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The federal British colony of Canada was formed in 1867 united three, not four, British colonies, namely, Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, not Upper Canada, lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.  Upper Canada and Lower Canada were united in 1840 as the Province of Canada. I have corrected accordingly. Hebbgd (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: "I'm not aware of another country that has states or provinces that have that much control over their jurisdictions." On the contrary I argue that the 27 states within the European Union have even more autonomy than the Canadian provinces.83.177.143.118 (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove this fairly quickly: Not only is Canada a federation, the federal level of government has more power than that of our American neighbours. Now it is true that, in theory, the Notwithstanding clause allows any province to violate the charter of rights and freedoms and that Quebec has already done so by enacting certain parts of Bill 101. However, to claim that this single isolated incident is indicative that we are a confederation is akin to saying that Michelle-Jean's prorogue of parliament to avoid an upset in government indicates that the Queen still holds the true power. In theory, yes, BC Legislative Assembly could use the notwithstanding clause change it's criminal law, just as the Governor General could return executive power to the throne and Eli could order us into Iraq. Canadian government's theoretical operation has always been different from our actual operation. 96.48.232.41 (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: BC could not use the notwithstanding clause change its criminal law for the simple reason there is no BC criminal law.  The Canadian constitution gives civil law to the provincial government and criminal law to the federal government (although provinces administer justice, including criminal law enforcement and trails).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Pyne2 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: Could the editors of this page please comment on the necessity of the inclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on this page. If we can reach concensus the page will be unprotected.--nixie 09:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you never heard of Royal Prussia... Halibutt 15:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
This seized by poles part of Prussia wasn't all Prussia. In Koenigsberg article polish falsificators state that Koenigsberg (Karaliaučius) was part of PLC as well. Wikipedia is full of such cheap polish falsifications. History won't change because of that rubbish. Zivinbudas 16:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.. the rest was a Polish fief Ducal Prussia.--Witkacy 07:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I second that. Halibutt 21:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Deir Yassin, your suggestion makes sense and would so some way to cleaning up the page. I'll wait to hear from Zivinbudas to see if he agrees, and other if any other interested parties have somwthing to add, then there shouldn't be any problem unblocking the page--nixie 23:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: As I wrote on the PLC talk few weeks ago, it is difficult to apply modern terms like (con)federation to historical entities. We can forever argue that PLC was a confederation or federation, because in fact it had the qualities of both, so both sides are right. Thus I propose that we put PLC in a category: entity with qualities of both federation of confederation. I had already such a note to the PLC article when it was unprotected for short time recently. I hope that satisfied all involved parties, feeel free to suggest improvement to this change, of course. When I am sure Zvinbudas will not simply replace all occurances of federation with confederation, as he has done for the past 2 months, I will agree for unprotection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: In fact, as I said previously, it is difficult to apply these terms even for current entities, such as EU; therefore I proposed this, that after every mentioning in that list in brackets it would be explained what institutions were common, and what - separate in each state and such. Because otherwise it can be argued about many entities, tight confederations might seem to be federations and loose confederations - international organizations, therefore there is now a list of entities considered confederations; explainations in brackets will help each reader to decide also because evrery (con)ffederations relations between subjects is different, there cannot be a real definition here, so examples will help. DeirYassin 12:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is my POV. However, you have your own POV, don't you? I will agree with your POV IF you can cite your sources since Wikipedia is no place for orginal research and statements. If you can give me the academic sources which state PLC was a confederation (and for breaks, capitals, languages, all you find arguable), I will support your version on those points. Deal? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus on PLC

message: The definition of "confederation" in this sense may need revision.  Such an organization was not a "privilege" but an entity formed to attain a certain end.  Nor was it limited to the nobility; a number of "confederations" were formed by cities.  logologist 06:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has its own article, see confederatio. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Confederation" as Polish organization

message: :A confederation is an association of sovereign states,
This is incomplete.  There are plenty of private organisations that are called Confederations.  One famous example is the Confederation of British Industry.
Morwen - Talk 13:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-state confederations

message: There was a translation of Fete du Canada as Feast of Canada. It is obvious that the correct translation is Canada Day. --60.229.83.163 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada Day

message: Confederacy and Confederation are two different things! A confederation is an established republic where the states have more power than the federal government. A confederacy is an organization against a (or the concept of) federation. Confederation is a government, Confederacy is an organiztion against a government.
* Sorry, no. A Confederacy is simply a collaboration. The "con" is from the Latin, meaning "with." The "contra"/"against" meaning came much later through the Germanic. TimB 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIFFERENT!!! 

message: The United Arab Republic is listed as "de facto" confederacy, while nominally it was a unitary state. The same happens for other countries too. I think the "de facto" label should be explained (what does it means and why this definition was retained for each of the concerned countries). Otherwise those "de facto" nations should be removed.
193.253.199.143 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DE FACTO 

message: Why did John A.macDonald want confederation, can someone help me out and answer please...thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowhock (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I am unhappy with the line in the definition "...without however constituting a new state on top of the member states". Surely this cannot apply in the case of Switzerland which acts and is recognised as a "state" in it's own right whle at the same time being a confederation of its constiuent "states" (Cantons).  I can't change it to a better definition without some authoriative resources.  Is it possibly the case that Switzerland, despite being called a confederation is in reality more of a weak federation? (it's a genuine question not a presumption of fact so feel free to explain why this is or isn't the case).  My own understanding is that a Federation is an organisation that devolves certain significant powers from the central government to its constituent states/regions, whereas a Confedeation is where a group of autonomous states devolve certain significant powers to a central government to act for them as a whole.  I use the word significant in both cases: 1. to contrast a genuine federation to what are simply tiers of national and regional/local government 2. to contrast a genuine confederation to a looser arrangement of cooperation such as customs union or shared defence strategy. Dainamo (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition vs Switzerland

message: "...Canada, however, is a federation, not a confederation."
Canada is indeed a confederation, because the Canadian Crown defines it as such. Queen Elizabeth II is simultaneously The Queen of each of all the Provinces, as well as the entity known as 'Canada;' she is not Queen of, say, British Colombia because she is Queen of Canada, but rather she is Queen of both British Colombia and Canada. Structurally, this clearly makes Canada a confederation of Crowns - which is to say, legally distinct political entities - which all happen to be 'worn,' if you will, by the same individual. Additionally, The Queen is the Monarch of the United Kingdom, and Canada, and Australia, and New Zealand, et cetera, but it would be a distinct misunderstanding to say these countries were in a Federal system of some sort.
The manifold Crown is the result of how Canada developed, as being an amalgamation of separately governed Provinces of the British Crown; each Province still has powers resultant from this process, notably the codified process of secession from Canada.
Camden Rennis (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Canadian Confederation doesn't agree with you.  Please check the citations there. --Red King (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text: WP articles aren't sufficient for citing sources - you still have to cite the original source when adding new material, even when it's from another article. Incidently, this definition protion of thaat article is not cited either. - BilCat (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop capitalizing (in the the article; I WP:DGAF what you do in talk) the world "confederation" every time it appears in a sentence that relates to Canada. This is English, not German; we do not capitalize random nouns simply for being nouns.  It should be capitalized in the phrase "Canadian Confederation", not otherwise. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  15:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada as a confederation 

message: Thomas Jefferson referred to America as a "confederation" during his presidency.  I don't know how late this usage hung around, but should it be noted? source: http://mises.org/daily/4473
Cameron Nedland (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  America 

message: I removed the following paragraph as it was insufficiently sourced: "By definition the difference between  confederation and a federation is that the many memberships of the member states in a confederation are voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not." While that definition may obtain for that source, I am not at all certain that it would be accepted by most other authorities. --Khajidha (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: The article says many refer to Belgium as having aspects of a Confederation but does not say what they are we should add them  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium 

message: The Introduction could be more clear about the distinction between "confederation" and "federation".  Someone work on this please.  Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Confederation versus Federation 

message: Should the Soviet Union be listed as a technical confederation, in how it claimed to be structured (with its individual republics as de jure independent states - hence why Ukraine and Belarus could be founding members of the UN, despite not achieving true independence until half a century later)? 66.180.191.23 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet Union? 

message: This section seems to be a description of a military alliance formed to fight a particular battle rather than a confederation as used in the rest of the article. It also seems to be the work of a single editor. 
I think it should be removed but does anyone else have an opinion? 92.251.83.81 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section - Arabia during Muhammad era 

message: Can someone center the dates for the new sections because I can't figure out how to do that.
Freedom4U (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dates 

message: Among the earliest known confederations are: 
- Assuwa was a confederation (or league) of 22 ancient Anatolian states that formed some time before 1400 BC, when it was defeated by the Hittite Empire
- The Israelites (/ˈɪzriəlaɪts/; Hebrew: בני ישראל‎ Bnei Yisra'el) were a confederation of Iron Age Semitic-speaking tribes of the ancient Near East, who inhabited a part of Canaan during the tribal and monarchic periods
This needs to be fixed! 
Bronze Age collapse related to formation of confederations... Philip.e.kahn (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For ancient unions we normally refer to them as "League" like League of Corinth, Epirote League, League of the Islanders, Chrysaorian League, League of Free Laconians.--Moxy 🍁 23:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

text: If you think it should be included in the article, then Be Bold (WP:BOLD) and fix it. :) Just be sure to include a good source in support. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitted earliest confederations 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I noticed many trade union federations in the historical confederations list. While these are confederations in a sense, they have little to do with confederations of states which is the subject of the particle per the lead. With the exception of Spanish unions who controlled territory during the civil war, the trade union federations should be removed Benboy250 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade union federations in "historical confederations" list 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: So, I had noticed that in the list of historical confederations, when it mentions the Powhatan, it directs to the page for the Powhatan people, instead of the Powhatan Confederacy, I would like to know if this is intentional, and if not, could I edit it to direct to the Powhatan Confederacy? AU Fan V2 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powhatan link 

message: Is it worth merging Confederation and List of confederations, as Confederation also has a fairly comprehensive list. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexanderkowal (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Alexanderkowal (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I think it should be separate AvailableViking (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @AvailableViking yeah I’ll get rid of the merge, I did this when I first came across it Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with List of confederations