Talk:John A. Macdonald

Canada is a federation

An issue has come up about the use of the term "federation". It's true that the term "confederation" is used to describe both the process by which the country was formed ("Confederation occurred on July 1, 1867.") and the addition of new provinces ("Saskatchewan joined Confederation on September 1, 1905."). However, that is a very limited use of the term, and a bit of a historical accident. Professor Peter Hogg, one of Canada's leading constitutional scholars, points out that the Canadian usage of "confederation" in this since does not match political science and constitutional law definitions of a "confederation"; it is simply Canadian usage, and is not used to describe the central government.

Canada certainly is a federation. That is the common term used to describe the central government, and the allocation of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments. See for example, the federal government's own web-pages, summarizing the constitutional structure of the country:

Government

Canada has three levels of government:

federal

provincial or territorial

municipal (city)

Federal government

The Prime Minister heads the federal government based in Ottawa. It deals with national and international matters, such as: [followed by list of enumerated federal powers].

As well, the first volume of Hogg's two volume text on Canadian constitutional law is dedicated entirely to the principles of federalism and the allocation of responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. Chapter 5 is dedicated entirely to "Federalism", while chapter 15 is entitled "Judicial Review on Federal Grounds". The next twenty or so chapters all deal with federal provincial allocation of powers. In his chapter on federalism he states: "It is fair to conclude that the unitary elements of the Canadian Constitution are quite unimportant in relation to the federal elements, and that the Canadian Constitution is federal under any reasonable definition of that term." [my emphasis]

See also Eugene Forsey's booklet, How Canadians Govern Themselves, originally commissioned by the federal government. It is now in its 9th edition and provided online, and free charge in hard copy, by the Library of Parliament. Forsey was one of the leading constitutional authorities by the time of his death. Chapter 2 of the book is simply entitled "A Federal State", and begins: "A federal state is one that brings together a number of different political communities with a common government for common purposes, and separate 'state' or 'provincial' or 'cantonal' governments for the particular purposes of each community. The United States of America, Canada, Australia and Switzerland are all federal states. Federalism combines unity with diversity." [my emphasis]

In conclusion, I would say that Canada is a federation; it has a federal government; and it is incorrect to deny that. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Why use the term at all? What was wrong with Dominion, the term that was changed?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but that's a different issue from denying that Canada is a federation.

The reason is that the use of the term "Dominion" is archaic, and does not reflect modern usage. There is in fact an entire wiki page devoted to the issue of the Name of Canada :). If we're working on an encyclopedia that is meant for general usage, using the modern term to refer to the country is a preferable approach. It avoids confusion and links to modern usage. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I've avoided the term entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"Dominion" is/was the countries TITLE denoting an independent Commonwealth realm ..nothing to do with the type of government per say. --Moxy 🍁 15:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree. It was a comment on the type of government: a semi-autonomous (not independent) country under British control. That's why the term has fallen into disuse, in Canada and all other Commonwealth countries, because of its colonial meaning. It's also why in the final British statute dealing with Canada, the term "Dominion of Canada" was not used. Just "Canada". More recent legislation overrides older legislation. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear here.. I agree with what you're saying. Dominion is not the scholarly term used in describing Canada's type of government... it was a term of Art with a much broader meaning than just government type. My point was that current scholarly terminology used is to refer to Canada as a federation and not a Confederation or Dominion.--Moxy 🍁 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Province of Canada was split into Quebec and Ontario

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)

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 Jim Lightbody (1 December 2005). City Politics, Canada. University of Toronto Press. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-1-4426-0851-1..--Moxy 🍁 15:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

KCMG

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)

It was added by an IP years ago.[1] I've removed it. DrKay (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Confederation vs federation.

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)

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)

Page move

@Wehwalt: 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)

I've seen it but it looks completely circular to me.Lennox Theodore Anderson, can you explain what you were doing here?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Last paragraph of introduction

@Wehwalt: I attempted an edit to fix three distinct problems I see in the current introduction last paragraph, when perhaps they should be discussed separately:

• Only the Chinese Head Tax in Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Scandal criticisms are mentioned, when the article devotes considerable attention to criticisms of his handling of the North-West Rebellion and indigenous affairs in general
• The language of "historical rankings have consistently placed Macdonald" does not make it clear that this statement currently only refers to surveys sent to selected academics and journalists by the popular interest magazine Maclean's, rather than widespread consensus or even multiple sources
• The construct "He is criticized...However" implies to me that his placement in the rankings counterbalances or outweighs the criticisms of the previous sentence. I feel it is more neutral to have these statements stand alone, without the connector.

BrightVamp (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

On the first point, basically, you're recasting the language to be more negative in tone. The lede has been argued over enough that I feel what's there now carries general consensus and darkening the tone in such a way should be discussed. I.e., do we say everything he's been criticized for in the lede? On the second point, a statement on historical rankings seems fairly standard in president/prime minister articles, without the caveats you want to add. On your third, I'm fine with casting it in the way you propose.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the 2016 Maclean's survey of 123 experts in Canadian political history (economists, journalists, political scientists, historians, and international relations scholars). Maclean's did a very good job--and the two professors who were in charge became journalists & followed up & reported serious answers. this is what news magazines do best. It compares well with the best American surveys of presidential scholars. Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: It sounds like the feeling is that having three criticisms in the last paragraph weights it too much towards critical? If so then the choice seems a little arbitrary - the article has a significant paragraph in Legacies and Memorials about criticism for his indigenous policies, and less than 50 words overall about the head tax. And when he is criticized in the present day, is the CPR scandal weighted as heavily? A search for "john a macdonald criticism" turns up plenty of mention of the chinese and indigenous policies (National Post, Globe & Mail), but not the CPR. His biographer emphasizes all three as quoted at the end: "he was responsible for the CPR scandal, the execution of Louis Riel, and for the head tax on Chinese workers"

@Rjensen: That's great, it answers the question that is in my mind when I read a sentence in the passive voice like "he is rated one of the best prime ministers ever": by who? And ideally, why? What about adding, "By surveys of experts in Canadian political history" and possibly "for his key role in the formation of Canada." BrightVamp (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Good idea--I added your phrase "surveys of experts in Canadian political history" . Rjensen (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with mentioning criticism of indigenous and racial along the lines you say, and deleting the Pacific scandal. I might add "and development" or "and unification" after "formation".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok great. I have attempted the change, see what you think. BrightVamp (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@all It makes no sense to have the last paragraph. Since it is a matter of partisan opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by UApirate33 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Statues toppling, defaced and removed

@Vaselineeeeeeee: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rt Hon and PC

@Necrothesp: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Atchom: 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)

WP:URFA/2020

Hi Wehwalt 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)

• Returning to these notes, I think this article meets the FA criteria and marked it as satisfactory at URFA/2020. This article has been well maintained over the years, especially the biography section. If other editors agree, I hope they will mark this article as satisfactory as well. Z1720 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

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)

 Not done: I'm assuming you mean "in downtown" in the last paragraph of #Professional prominence, 1837–1843 (the sentence being Throughout the 1840s, Macdonald invested heavily in real estate, including commercial properties in downtown Toronto), 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)

Split "Prime Minister of Canada" section?

Maybe we can split it into "Prime Minister of Canada (1867–1873)", "Opposition (1873–1878)", and "Prime Minister of Canada (1878–1891)"?

Including Opposition 1873–1878 in the Prime Minister section is incorrect. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's better than what we have. Maybe renaming the section somehow?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's better, I'm saying it makes more sense as including Opposition in the "Prime Minister" section is incorrect. Ak-eater06 (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Section rename seems a good option. Current article section-subsection hierarchy is nice IMO. Crawdaunt (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What about renaming "National Leader"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think "National leader" would work. Z1720 (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Why "National Leader"? That section includes his time as Opposition leader, not national leader. I heavily oppose this idea as all PM articles have "Prime Minister of Canada" as the name of their section and some may get confused.

I would actually prefer to keep it as it is right now rather than renaming it to National Leader. Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I do struggle to see a good alternate section name. It is technically incorrect, but it gets the job done. Perhaps a subsection name change like changing:

Opposition, 1873–1878

to

Interlude as official opposition, 1873–1878 or Time as official opposition

or something like that? Can also be left as is. Just exploring possibilities. Crawdaunt (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should preserve the article structure there, as suggested by Crawdaunt, rather than have, possibly unnecessarily, three top-level sections, one of which (Opposition) would be relatively short. But I don't think it is too terrible to leave it as is. After all, the Mackenzie King prime minister section includes his time in opposition in 1926. No objection to adding years to the Opposition subsection, by the way--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The cultural genocides

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)

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)

Surname

Why is he referenced as Macdonald if he was born Mcdonald? [2] Minilammas (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Military service edits

It seems to me an awful lot of claimed information is being added here with very little verification. I'm not inclined to take much on faith so far as additions to this article go. I would revert to the last clean edit. Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have checked Creighton, "The Young Politician". There is no mention of the Bank Guard in it. At pp. 47-48, Creighton refers to Macdonald as being in the local militia. I have reverted all references to this supposed Bank guard, except for the one blockquote which was there prior to the recent edits. As well, the editor has stated that Macdonald was appointed an ensign; in fact, Creighton at p. 48 expressly states that Macdonald was not appointed an ensign, for reasons unknown. The editor also refers to p. 43 of Creighton to support some of the material added about Macdonald's military service. Page 43 is entirely about Macdonald's first major jury case, which began to get him attention as a coming barrister. There is no mention at all on p. 43 of militia service. Also deleted reference to the Patriot War in the infobox; no mention in the article that Macdonald participated in the Patriot War as a soldier.

I know that we are to "assume good faith", but that is a rebuttable presumption. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite. I've reverted to the last clean edit. Earlier today, they edited Diefenbaker, which is the other Canadian PM article I watchlist, and I reverted because no source was cited. They've been editing other Canadian PM articles, I gather mostly concerning military service. I haven't looked at any of the others, though. Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, yes I have been editing the military services of the PMs because they have been lacking completely. All the information is correct, coming from the militia muster rolls for Sir John, as well as from Francis John Blatherwick, a noted Canadian author and historian. He has gone in depth but has missed a few key pieces of information. For Sir John, the private letter blatantly states that he served at Montgomery's Tavern with the Bank Guard, and a simple search for John Macdonald on the Militia Rolls lists a Private John Macdonald in the Bank Guard in 1837. Some research and diligence will illustrate the truth of all the information I have added, to this PM and to the others. It is important that their military service is recognized. AxelRavera (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

See the above statement AxelRavera (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No offense, but why were you using Creighton as a source when it didn't say what you said? And why should we take Blatherwick's word on things like his being an ensign over Creighton and likely others? As for the letters, see WP:PRIMARY. We would more likely take the word of a biographer over a primary source such as a letter unless we can show that the biographer did not have the advantage of seeing the letter you cite. Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Blatherwick's data seems to be self-published. Again, you are dismissing the statement of Creighton (for example) that Macdonald did not become an ensign and stating definitively that he did, based on primary source information. Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, it was worded incorrectly as it should have been amended to read that he did not occupy the position of Ensign, it has since been corrected to agree with Creighton's statement. That does not change the other facts of his prior service. AxelRavera (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Another source used comes from a Masters Thesis from Redeemer University College and that source refers to Creighton in relation to Macdonald's service in the Frontenac Militia. Blatherwick simply refers to the Upper Canada Gazette from 1838 which states that Sir John was to be appointed an ensign but on that date had not taken the position. Primary source documents, when combined with facts from the original militia rolls, have much more credence than the biographer because the biographer did not focus on Sir John's military service so naturally he did not go in depth. All the information is correct and corroborated by facts from the militia lists. AxelRavera (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Could I ask you to add links to the works you are citing? Most 19th century books should be available online and a surprising number of 20th century, from the early part thereof. You add the link to the "url=" field. Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, you can't use a master's thesis as a source under most circumstances. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And if I was quoting the Thesis then yes you’d be correct however I used the footnotes, which are from reputable sources, from the Thesis relating to the primary source as well as to Creighton’s info on the Frontenac militia. As for the information on his service with the Bank Guards, that comes directly from the militia muster roll from December 1837. I assume that is reputable enough for you? If not then we truly have no good sources anywhere. AxelRavera (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of regurgitating one biographers work, which is no doubt a good piece of work but does not do a deep dive into the little details of his military service because it is of little interest to him, you should do hours of research into the militia files and history of the Rebellion and utilize those multiple sources to understand Sir John’s full service. Simply saying “he was in the local militia like everyone was” is not good enough. You must tell the full story. AxelRavera (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Macdonald is a well-studied figure and has had several biographers. I would expect information available in readily-available primary sources (such as published militia lists) to be considered in one or another. Better to source to those. Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I would expect it too and yet it is not stated. Now they either did not look any deeper because they simply accepted “he was in the militia” and there was no need to add more research because the ready does not care, or they simply never came across it. You would think that if it is good enough to use a primary source that is cited in a secondary source it would be good enough to just cite the primary source. The facts of the matter are there, if you wish to remove it and not acknowledge his service during an early important Canadian battle then do so at your pleasure. Multiple sources not that Sir John served in the “local militia”, and he indeed served in two local militia regiments, the 3rd Frontenac and the Bank Guard. Multiple sources note that he marched to Toronto, he did, with the bank guard in December 1837. His own testimony from 1887 places him in Toronto, at Montgomery tavern, serving in the bank guard. Militia lists corroborate those facts. How can there be doubt still? He later worked on behalf of the commercial bank as his ties were already there from 1837. AxelRavera (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

For which source do you want the link? For any sources with links I have already provided them. AxelRavera (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

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)

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)

Nationality

MOS:NATIONALITY states that "the opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable." That includes mentioning the subject's nationality.

Every single other article on a Canadian prime minister, with the exception of John Diefenbaker's, mentions the subject's nationality in the opening sentence. That means this is one of only two articles out of 23 similar ones that deviate from Wikipedia standard practice.

Therefore, what justifies this?

If you want to argue it's because Macdonald was of British (Scottish) birth and that complicates his nationality, every other foreign-born prime minister (Mackenzie, Bowell, Turner) is listed as Canadian.

Unless a good reason is given, our standard policy should be to follow consensus and use consistent writing across all of our articles. This article is the exception, not the rule, to how nationality is addressed on Wikipedia. TheCelebrinator (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't entirely take your point. Surely Prime Minister of Canada implies the holder being Canadian? To the extent there was a Canadian nationality at the time, of course, which there wasn't entirely which is why Bennett could go back and sit in the House of Lords. Why is a repetition even good writing? Why say "Canada" and "Canadian" in the same sentence if you don't need to? As for the other prime ministers, there are different ways of writing the lead sentence that comply with the MOS. The way you suggest is not required by the MOS, and MOS:REDUNDANCY urges us to "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence." It is redundant to say that a the prime minister of Canada is a Canadian politician. It might be better if you suggested a change to the MOS that yielded the uniformity that you seek. Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It's important to keep consistency across all articles. If the vast majority of Wikipedia articles follow the same writing style, then it follows that this should be the norm for all other articles, unless, as I've said, there is a good reason for an exception.

MOS:REDUNDANCY does not list political leaders as an exception to listing their nationalities. It's entirely baseless to claim that listing a politician's nationality would be 'redundant' as plenty of other world leaders, such as Gandhi, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, etc., etc., are listed by their nationality. If this was really so redundant, most articles on Wikipedia would be considered incorrect.

What is, however, in the MOS is MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, where nationality is listed as one of the main things should feature in the first sentence of a biography. Therefore, unless there's a good reason not to do so, this article shouldn't be an exception to a widely followed guideline on Wikipedia. TheCelebrinator (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If you notice under MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, the first two examples do not follow the form of words that you would have. The Prime Minister of Canada is perforce Canadian. Accordingly, the nationality is presented. Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Cleopatra was a monarch, and monarchs, be they Egyptian Queens, British Kings or Chinese Emperors are usually referred to not by their nationality, but by their title (eg: "King of Spain"). As Macdonald was an elected official, and not a monarch, the comparison does not apply here.

Petrarch did not live in the modern nation-state of Italy, so his nationality is more complicated. At any rate, most of his relative contemporaries, like Dante Alighieri, Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo are listed as Italian. Petrarch, therefore, is not the rule, but the exception, and Macdonald, unlike Petrarch, did live in a nation called "Canada" in his lifetime.

I remind you that nearly every other article on the other Canadian prime ministers lists the subject's nationality in the opening sentence. You might personally think that's redundant, but over 90% of the other articles follow the same structure. Inconsistency is not a mark of good writing and certainly not of good encyclopedic content. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yet the two that don't have your favored phrasing happen to be the two that have passed through formal review processes and are featured articles. In other words, they are the ones that other editors have looked at with a critical eye. That carries rather more weight than a change made that no one bothers to revert.

The first sentence as it stands contains the necessary information on nationality. It satisfies the MOS, as actually it had to to pass WP:FAC. The "consistency" you suggest is irrelevant to the reader, who only wants information and does not go from article to article comparing phrases. Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Featured article status does not mean that the article is perfect, as editors are still enoucraged to edit and improve it. It certainly does not mean that the article is exempt from basic encyclopedic mistakes like featuring multiple red links in the article on the Rhodesia Information Centre. It only means that the article was evaluated to be, at point, amongst the best articles Wikipedia has to offer.

Obviously, as I've shown, this doesn't mean the article is necessarily flawless, even if it passes WP:FAC. Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS. If the current consensus is to follow a certain writing guideline, that's what should be the standard across all articles, unless there be a valid exception. As far as I could tell, this article was granted FA status a dozen years ago, so it would make sense that writing guidelines since then, and thus the consensus behind it, would have changed with time.

And FYI, as editors on Wikipedia, our mission should be to make the reader's experience as enjoyable and as streamlined as possible. This means that presentation is just as important as information, and neglecting that because a reader wouldn't "go from article to article comparing phrases" is doing this encyclopedia a disservice. Overall quality should never just be a mere afterthought. TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as consensus across articles, except as set forth in the Manual of Style, and even that is to be used with common sense and is subject to IAR exceptions. You jump from point to point, here saying that because other articles that have never been reviewed follow a certain practice, that all articles should, but except where there is policy, consensus is found in individual articles, not because someone edited somewhere else and no one reverted. If there was a consensus that an article appear in this manner, it would be in Manual of Style, and it isn't. Only half of the examples in the MOS for the provision you cited follow the phrasing you would like, so it is clearly not mandated or part of project-wide consensus. It is for you to build consensus in individual articles, not to point elsewhere. Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, regarding your point that there may be an old consensus, the choice of language at John Diefenbaker, the other article you complain of, is from December 2021. Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

First, the usage of the term 'complaining' is pejorative and a loaded term. It's not at all appropriate in a civil, reasonable discussion. Respect is owed to everyone arguing in good-faith.

Second, I am basing my argument on the fact that nearly every other article, and you can cross-check with other articles on foreign political leaders if you'd like, uses the same, consistent choice of phrasing that mentions the subject's nationality in addition to the office held.

Case in point:

"Joe Biden is an American politician who is the current and 46th president of the United States..."

"Xi Jinping is a Chinese politician who has been serving as the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party..."

"Fumio Kishida is a Japanese politician serving as prime minister of Japan..."

And so on and so forth. That's the current (as in, not from c. 2010) consensus. It's also the current consensus for Canadian prime ministers, as 21/23 articles also mention nationality. I am thus objecting to the non-standard wording found in this article.

The Diefenbaker article appears to have used that choice of wording, as you put it, since at least 2011, not 2021, as you wrote, further confirming my point.

[3] Link to this revision from November 2011.

Anyways, as I've already written to you, I've asked for a 3O opinion on this, so for now, let's just wait for that. TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No offense was meant with "complained", please read it to mean "concerned about".

And I think you'll find you are mistaken about Diefenbaker, see Talk:John Diefenbaker#RFC: First sentence of the first lead paragraph this RFC] from December 2021

I am still of the opinion you are incorrect. That being said, it isn't worth my time, so I've taken the liberty of editing the lede. Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. Citizenship and nationality is complicated for people born in or immigrants to British North America before Confederation, and this is a featured article. We need a better source for this than someone's assertion that "all prime ministers are Canadian". If there's no source for Macdonald's nationality then it's fine to leave out, regardless of what's said in the biographies of people who are not Macdonald. As Wehwalt said, Macdonald's nationality and heritage are adequately described in the lede's second paragraph. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Nine of Canada's first prime ministers (pre-Meighen) were born pre-Confederation. There is no dispute that Macdonald, along with the other eight prime ministers, were Canadian, since their nationality in the lede, including for those foreign-born PMs, is listed as Canadian. Wehwalt has also acknowledged that being "Prime Minister of Canada implies the holder being Canadian." TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm not sure how this ended up in such dispute. It is not necessary, nor redundant to include the nationality in the opening sentence. Both approaches neither harm nor significantly contribute to the article. On balance, per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, I think it is best to include the nationality — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

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)

The source at the end of the sentence supports the current wording. DrKay (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)