Talk:Canada/Archive 14

message: Several people have been referring to "the lede." It seems to me that they must mean "the lead". Sunray 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thought crossed my mind: 'lede' -- which doesn't have an entry in at least one common dictionary -- seems to be a neologism. Quizimodo 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term lede is explained here. The terms are essentially interchangeable. - Eron Talk 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, OK.  Are you leading me on?  Assuming we are not as dense as lead, who will take the lead in editing the lead? ;) Quizimodo 00:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wundered about this as well, lede/lead. Thought it was some latin term. GoodDay 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Lede" is a fairly common spelling in journalism and publishing; for example, it helps in those contexts to distinguish between the "lead" story, the one that's at the top of Page One with the big blaring WAR IN OCEANIA headline, from the "lede" paragraph of DOG BITES MAN on Page 99. The two spellings are basically interchangeable outside of publishing industry jargon, though. Bearcat 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede or Lead?

message: How does the term Dominion comprimise the neutrality of the Canada article?
 
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article, it's certainly polarizing. I'm happy to see the article locked, edit wars never solve anything. GoodDay 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well then, make your argument, rather than assume prejudice in 'the majority of Wikipedians'.You may just convince somebody. Now as I've said before, I'm not an expert in Canadian matters, so, as far as I know, 'Dominion' may be part of Canada's official title. I don't know.But I am concerned by the idea that the term 'dominion' can still be used to label a former dependency of Great Britain. This is incorrect. No nation uses the term to describe itself; the UK has not used the term since 1948; the Empire no longer exists, so there is no context in which 'dominion' may retain any validity; it implies a notion of subservience to the UK, and so is considered demeaning by the nations of the former Empire. If Canada uses 'dominion' in it's title, I would ask you to demonstrate that it is in a specific context proper to Canada alone, and does not carry colonial overtones. Similarly I would ask you to acknowledge that the other Commonwealth realms are not described as dominions.--Gazzster 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominion is "neutral" ... is it not?

message: Soulscanner wrote, 
:"The third source appears at the Commonwealth Commission's history page. There is no author attributed to this source. This publisher 's mission is to promote the British Commonwealth and Monarchy, so it's objectivity is dubious. It's purpose is not to document history in a scholarly fashion, but to paint the British Empire and Commonwealth in as good a light as possible. In so doing, it publishes inaccuracies."
:"Most troubling is the outright falsehood that the intention of the British authorities or even the Fathers of Confederation was to establish a more autonomous status for the British dominion (dominion meant colony in the nomenclature of the day). It is clearly established by explicit quotes on the article Canada's name that the intentions of choosing Dominion were:
:"a). upholding Queen Victoria's dominion or supremacy over the Canadian territory;
:"b). British colonial officials thought that the preferred title, "Kingdom" would offend republican sensibilities in the U.S.;
:"c). The Premier of New Brunswick liked the biblical overtones."
I must ask here ... Soulscanner is your first language English?
a).  Do you understand that "Dominion" is different than "dominion"?
b). Yes it would offend the USA.
c).  Ummm err ... So what?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is outright rubbish

message: The Wikipedia entry for 'Canada' lists GDP per capita at $32,614 and adjusted for PPP at $35,600.  The Wikipedia entry for 'List of Canadian provinces and territorries by gross domestic product' lists different figures.  The figure here at PPP is $44,118.  This is a huge difference.  Which is correct?  Perhaps, neither?  I can see the nominal figure for Canada being $44,118 because of the rapid increase in the value of the Canadian dollar and the figure at PPP being perhaps around $40,000.
The current listings just don't make sense though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.40.223 (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian GDP per capita