Talk:Family Compact

message: Do double spaces even show up after periods?  I know I type them out of habit (I just did right there), but I never see them afterwards.  And, just out of curiosity, why are they annoying? Adam Bishop 18:56 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
---
This phrase is also used commonly in Toronto to describe the various ways the Law Society of Upper Canada and Liberal Party of Ontario have set up a legalized monopoly over certain aspects of the legal system, which are in effect under the control of a very small number of people and law firms that have many of "the right family names".  This modern usage should be dealt with.
Also Canadian Establishment and Peter Newman's analysis of how it grew out of the Family Compact should be mentioned.
:That's a good idea...you should mention it yourself, if you want :) Adam Bishop 18:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have some doubts about the neutrality of this article. The opening para in particular. While the Family Compact was doubtless not a paragon of virtue, to call it an oligarchy with closed admission is really going a bit too far. In fact, there is evidence that the Family Compact was quite willing to engage new members, given that the new member presented himself through the usual channels.
I think the Family Compact was likely not worse and no better than any other informal political organization of the day.
CJ_WeißSchäfer  20:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of this article is questionable 

message: This section should be updated based on recent scholarship.  Even by 1965-1975, the Canadian establishment was dominated by the descendants of "yeomen" settlers, e.g., the Masseys, Eatons, and of course the descendants of other colonial elites (e.g., from Quebec)  should be mentioned.  TFD (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: "The loyalist tradition included its class structure society and amongst the elite, such as John Beverley Robinson and John Strachan, it was considered the ideal. "
If someone could rewrite this into comprehensible English, that would be great.  It looks like it's been garbled somehow, or maybe badly translated from another language? It's not clear at all what it's supposed to mean. --Jfruh (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  gibberish sentence 

message: Indeed, that was gibberish! Not at all sure how that happened, but I've re-written a more comprehensible sentence. 
Thanks for catching that
CJ_WeißSchäfer
CJ_WeißSchäfer  01:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: I have added a citation needed tag to the last sentence of this section. Perhaps amusing, it is may not be useful, true or noteworthy content. Unless this is fixed in a month or so, I'll delete this. Cheers! SuW (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present: reference to Canadian Club (presumably) 

message: The article currently asserts the family compact was active from the War of 1812 to the 1837 rebellion.  But it also refers to appointments made by John Graves Simcoe, who was Lieutenant Governor 20 years prior to the War of 1812...
That is contradictory.
FWIW, it was always my understanding that Simcoe did introduce this practice...  Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory... 

message: "The vacant lands of Upper Canada" was a nineteenth century fantasy, was it not? The writer unwittingly? supports the spurious notion that there were no First Nations people in Upper Canada. Ghastly!  
The entire article calls for a more nimble and contemporary revision. Unless, of course, some version of the Family Compact is still operating in the Canadian government, the COE, and Wikipedia (kidding). Inwitinthemidwest (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sentence "The role of speculation in the vacant lands of Upper Canada ensured the development of group solidarity and cohesion of interest among the members of the Family Compact."