Talk:Canadian Confederation

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* North America 1748.PNG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I've reviewed the definition of "natural born citizen" in the Citizenship Act of 1946, ss. 4 and 5.  I've not found any exclusion for indigenous peoples.  The key phrase is s. 4(a):  "4. A person, born before the commencement of this Act, is a natural-born Canadian citizen:-- (a) if he was born in Canada or on a Canadian ship and has not become an alien at the commencemnt of this Act;".  Section 5 sets out a similar test for those born in Canada after the commencement of the Act. Can you point me to the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from citizenship which you referred to in your recent note?  Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Went back and looked at it again.  Sorry, I see now that the note has been there for a few years now, and your addition was the reference to Status Indians.  However, as I said, I don't see any reference in the 1946 Citizenship Act excluding Indigenous peoples, Status or otherwise.  The citation needed tag was added in 2019.  Since no-one has responded to it in the past two years, I'm inclined to remove that note. Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Status Indians were not considered British subjects, so they did not become citizens in 1947. This is my understanding. It is mentioned in Canadian nationality law#First_Nations_and_Inuit. Alaney2k (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a look at that section, and I'm afraid that it looks like original research, which is not backed up by the text of the statutes it cites. There is no mention of First Nations or Inuit anywhere in the 1946 Canadian Citizenship Act, and the 1956 Act is actually addressing Indigenous peoples who were born outside of Canada.  Nor does s. 4 (the natural born section) refer to British subject status.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been doing some research on the citizenship issue and I've put a "Factual accuracy disputed" tag on the Talk page for Canadian Nationality Law.  Please take a look if you're interested.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigenous peoples and citizenship

message: I'm puzzled by the suggestion that the use of quotation marks around Status Indians was considered "scare quotes".  I was using them to mark a defined term, just like quotation marks are used elsewhere in the same article to indicate that "Confederation" and "Fathers of Confederation" were defined terms.  A number of other words and phrases are indicated in quotation marks,  such as "manifest destiny", "kingdom", "premature", "pretentious", "founding a great British monarchy", "liberal order", "legislative vacuum", "Fathers", "Union" and "federation". By a quick search, the article has 152 quotation marks, so 76 pairs of quote marks. Are those "scare quotes" and should all be removed?  If not, what is the objective test of "scare quotes"? Does it just depend on the subjective reaction of a particular editor? Many of those examples are to indicate defined terms, just like "Status Indians".  How else does one indicate a defined term, if not by quotation marks? That is particularly the case when "Status Indian" is a term with a particular legal meaning in Canada;  why can we not use quote marks for that particular legal term? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scare quotes"? 

message: We've been having a debate on the short description, which in turn has opened a debate on how to describe this article.  My preferred description would be: "Formation of Canada in 1867".  I think that accurately summarises the lead sentence to the article, and is well under the 40 character guideline for short descriptions:  WP:SD40.  I don't think it is appropriate to use the Province of Canada as being identical to Canada as created by the Confederation process.  The whole tenor of this article is that three different BNA colonies came together to form a new polity, and the short description should match the content of the article.  The distinction between the Province of Canada, which ceased to exist on July 1, 1867, and the new Canada which came into existence on July 1, 1867, needs to be maintained. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree... it's short, sweet, and to the point. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description