Talk:Canadian Senate divisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

My understanding of Canadian Senate Divisions has been that, outside of Quebec, they're arbitrary geographic groupings chosen by the senator themselves; a senator might choose to promote themselves as a representative of a whole province or just a self-constructed portion of one (which may well correspond with their former riding if they were an MP, for instance.) The article, composed by an anonymous editor, seems to first agree with the notion of these things beings pure fabrications of the Senatorial mind, but then goes on with the general notion that there exists some system of permanent divisions in English Canada drawn up by statute (In all the other provinces Senate Divisions can be occupied by more then one Senator. Senate boundaries are made up of a large urban area or a number of small municipal areas, while rural areas are represented by Senators of a province at large.) Our editor has gone so far as to put together pages like Ontario Senate division). You'll all forgive me for calling horesehit, no? -The Tom 18:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur with User:The Tom. Quebec has 24 senatorial divisions, but the other provinces do not. Senators may choose to represent a notional district if they want. Take a look at the list of Senators, and you'll see that some of the Ontario senators represent "Ontario", others "Toronto". There is one who represents "Metro Toronto". Peter Stollery represents "Bloor & Yonge/Toronto", naming the intersection where his family's men's clothing store has been located forever. Anne Cools represents "Toronto-Center-York". I recall one senator, now apparently retired, who chose to represennt "Toronto-Taddle Creek", in reference to an underground river that runs under the University of Toronto. And so on. If the creator of this article cannot come up with evidence, then thism ust be deleted. It sounds to me like someone has looked over the list and drawn their own conclusions. (If I'm ever apppinted, I'm going to represent "Toronto-HoSu Bistro on Queen Street West" in reference to my favourite sushihaus.) Ground Zero 19:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes User:The Tom is correct. The Constitution assigns divisions to Quebec only and even then the senators that represent those divisions are rarely from them and they are a relic moreso than something meaningful in today's political context. For province's other than Quebec the divisions range from small towns, to regions or to the entire province. In practice, the Prime Miniser of the day usually defines the division as whatever the incoming senator wants it to be called. They no longer exist upon the completion of a senator's term. - Jord 19:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added "dispute" tags to this article and to the branch articles where appropriate. I am going to take a run at re-writing this article in line with The Tom's points. See Talk:Canadian Senate Division/Temp. Ground Zero 13:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article should at most include a list and description of the Quebec Divisions with the explanation that they are unique and fixed but notwithstanding that they can be represented by any eligible person from anywhere in the province of Quebec and that in other provinces divisions are used occassionally and are merely symbolic and chosen in consultation with the appointee. - Jord 14:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would still be interesting to see what Senators have represented what areas over time. Even if those areas are arbritrary. I say, once we remove the original research, and perhaps rename and merge some articles, they would be fine. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Any contributions that you'd like to make to Talk:Canadian Senate Division/Temp would be welcome. Ground Zero 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Earl, I've built a skeleton to do what you are speaking of in a factual manner, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts? - Jord 17:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've taken a run at it using the list from the existing article. PLease take a look. Ground Zero 17:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's see the skeleton then, Jord. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uhhh it is in the temp article as linked above, though GZ has made some (positive) changes to it. - Jord 19:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, are we ready to replace the existng article and adust the branch articles? No-one has yet defeneded the existing description of CSDs. Ground Zero 16:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All of those existing articles will need to be adjusted, even the Quebec one (Grandville) needed some work though they are far more accurate than the rest. I'll try and go through them and clean them up. - Jord 18:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you know how we go about replacing Canadian Senate Divisions by Talk:Canadian Senate Division/Temp? I was just going to cut and paste, but then we lose the edit history on the new version. Since it's just you and me, if memory serves, that shouldn't be a big deal. Ground Zero 18:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We could certainly request a move, but then we would loose the history of the old page. Not sure which would be the best approach? - Jord 18:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If we cut the Temp version and paste it into the existing, tehn we keep the edit history of the existing, and the only loss of history are the changes that you and I have made: they will appear as one block change made either by me or by you. I don't care about teh credit, so if you want to do it, then go ahead. Or, if you want to leave to me, I can do it. We should also split up the existing article to cleanse them. Frankly, I think the non-Quebec and territories article should just be VfD'd because they are meaningless. Either that, or they should be merged into a "Senators from Alberta" article. Ground Zero 19:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree and would support such VfD's, go ahead and paste it over or I can do so and just mention it was a collaboration in the edit summary. - Jord 19:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. I have moved the article to "Canadian Senate divisions". I think the S should be capitalized because we're talking about the Canadian Senate, which should keep the capital. Ground Zero 19:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Non-Quebec divisions

Upon further research, I have discovered that none of the original non-Quebec senators had divisions [1] and I have also learned that divisions are never mentioned in the terms of the appointment [2] (Joe Day has always represented Saint John - Kennebecasis but this division was not mentioned despite the division of a Quebec appointee being mentioned). It seems that these divisions are even less relevant than I thought. I have changed the article to reflect my findings. - Jord 19:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mea cupla, further checking showed some did have divisions from the beginning but very few. - Jord 19:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It was I who created this article

I created this article about the Senate divisions, and I haven't been paying attention, because I have working on Alberta electoral history.

The grand purpose of this article was to provide a direct list of geographical areas based on information from the Senate website of areas that senators have represented historically.

All this information comes from Senate profiles both past and current senators, and the description was an attempt to explain what a senate division is, and this article to list those divisions. Fact Senate divisions outside of Quebec do indeed have "constituency" offices that provide the same services as member of parliament.

And it is a fact that Senators can represent the same division such as Calgary or Edmonton or whatever at the same time, its not contradictory at all.

But do whatever you like, since your determined to destroy it, I don't care anymore. After seeing this discussion, and the deletion stuff for the senate divisions i did work on, its not worth my time to contribute to Wikipedia. --Cloveious 06:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cloveious, I will post this message in your user space as well to make sure that you see it. None of what you have said above has been contradicted. I will quote from the current article:
Senators do have the option of maintaining a constituency office that provides all the same services as Members of Parliament, however this is rare. Currently three senators have such offices
As you point out, outside of Quebec these constituency offices exist, as a matter of fact all three are outside of Quebec: one each in BC, AB & SK. You go on to say that "And it is a fact that Senators can represent the same division such as Calgary or Edmonton or whatever at the same time, its not contradictory at all." No one ever said that there was any contradiction in your statement that Senators could represent the same area. However, I will quote from the article again:
In provinces other than Quebec, senators are appointed to represent the province as a whole and the Royal Proclamation makes no reference to divisions. Nonetheless, some senators are said to represent specific divisions which . . . have no specific geographic boundaries
That was the problem in your assumption when writing the article, the non-Quebec divisions do not legally exist and they have no geographic boundaries, they are simply names chosen by senators. I do not think you should be upset, after all, Wikipedia says be bold and that is what you did in the massive undertaking by creating this article. No one person can create a perfect article and that is why Wikipedia exists, so all of those with knowledge can come together and make a great, free encyclopedia. You should not be angry that your article has been changed, you should be proud that the article you created -- your article -- has gone on to spur some debate and has improved and become a valuable part of the asset that is Wikipedia. - Jord 13:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response from one of the instigators

Cloveious, I will respond here to what you posted here and on the VfD page.

To begin with, you must understand that Wikipedia is a group effort. No editor "owns" an article. Any article is subject to editing by other editors. When you are in edit mode, you will see, at the bottom of the page, an advisory notice that says:

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

So you must not be upset that others are going to change your work.

The fact that anyone can post whatever they want on Wikipedia creates a challenge in creating an encyclopedia. The only thing that keep Wikipedia a useful source of information is that numerous editors review article to determine whether or not the information is correct. If this process did not happen, Wikipedia would be quickly filled with people's resumes, and pages that say little other than "Pete Smith is a homo."

In this case, questions about the veracity of the information that you posted anonymously were raised over two weeks ago. Several editors, me included, tried and failed to confirm the information that you posted. This is the first time that there has been any response to the questions we raised. You should not be surprised that Wikipedians move quickly on pages they believe to be incorrect, and in fact, it shows the strength of Wikipedia that unverified information is challenged so quickly.

You have posted quite a lot of information on Wikipedia, and these are the only pages that I am aware of that have been challenged in this way. All of the work that you have done on Alberta elections and electoral districts has contributed to body of knowledge on Wikipedia, so I don't understand why you think that it is not worth your while to create content. The senate divisions stuff represents only a small portion of your work here.

On the question of the senate divisions, I think that you have not quite got the point that various others contributors and I are making. The article previously gave the reader the clear impression that non-Quebec Senate divisions are fixed entities, and that when a senator "representing" XYZ senate division retires, that division is vacant. This, we believe, is incorrect, and that is why the main article has been re-written and other articles have been posted on the VfD page.

The point that we are making is that the senate divisions that non-Quebec senators "represent" are not fixed, permanent geographic entities, but designations that these senators choose for themselves. When Peter Stollery retires, there is not a vacancy in the Toronto/Bloor-Yonge division, but a vacancy in the Ontario division. His replacement could choose to represent Ontario, Toronto, Cabbagetown, or whatever else strikes his or her fancy. There was no senator for "Toronto/Bloor-Yonge" before him, and it is unlikely that there will be another senator for "Toronto/Bloor-Yonge" after him. Same with Senator Jerry Grafstein, who represents, if memory serves, "Metro Toronto". I guess he chose that at the time of his appointment for whatever reason, but "Metro Toronto" no longer exists as a concept. The City of Toronto and the other municipalities that made up "Metro Toronto" were merged in 1999 in to a new "City of Toronto", so no-one ever talks about "Metro Toronto" anymore.

The links that you provided do indicate that senators represent senate divisions, but they do not provide any evidence to support the conclusion that you reached that senate divisions are fixed entities.

I think that there would be support for created a page like List of Alberta senators that would include present and former csenators and indicate the senate divisions that they dseginated for themselves, i.e., whether they chose to represent Alberta, Calgary, Edmonton, or Drumheller, for that matter. That would be a useful addition to Wikipedia, as long as it does not suggest that there are always to be two Calgary senators, two Edmonton senators and two Alberta senators, for example. Again, we have seen no evidence to support this.

In Quebec, where there are permanent senate divisions, the evidence for that has been pretty easy to find. The fact that we have not been able to find evidence to support the idea of permanent senate divisions outside of Quebec, I think, is clear evidence that they do not exist.

I hope that I have been able to explain why we have taken the steps that we have, and strongly encourage to continue contributing to Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please post them here or on my talk page. Ground Zero 13:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the responses

Hi, Ground Zero, and Jord, I just want to apoligize for acting like a jerk about the matter, Im not bothered about someone changing an article, what really bothered me and upset me more then anything, was "the Tom" and his comments he went around putting in other peoples comment pages about how upset he was that some guy named Cloveious did on the senate article, and whipped everyone into a frenzy about it, and got votes for deletion, without ever even consulting me in the begining about his concerns to why I might have done what I did. And I think deletion or consideration of deletion was an extream over reaction.

The fact is, the first thought I had to contributing to Wikipedia was in the list of current Senators and I saw that no one had added the divisions that were listed on the government of Canada website. So I added them, and then I thought well people might find it informative if they could see a total list of Senate divisions.

And with that list, I attempted to explain them, and I guess I failed. I organized the original list into Divisions by name that have current representation from current senators, and inactive by name that were previously represented by senators, and historical, IE divisions from the old areas of the Northwest territories that could never again exist.

Maybe vacant was the wrong choice of words, but it was meant in the terms of non represenation as in was someone representing that, now there is not.

In the articles, i did create I listed current and historical senators from the said divisions going back to 1867. I thought these would be informative, because people might want to know who senators that had were in a geographical area from past to present. I never stated anywhere aside from Quebec and the territories that boundaries were predefined, and if I mistakenly did, that was not my intention. I also added see also's to Divisions in the same city. In the case of Toronto-Centre-York,

In the case of Charlottetown PEI, and the territories I thought that it might be good to include the Senators with those under the same article of the Federal district, because one can easily make the assumption that they would share common borders. It seemed like a good idea at the time anyway.

I added a map because one was avalible, and I thought it might be of interest.

I had intended to get back around and improve the whole thing at some point, but I had been researching and putting time into Alberta provincial history, because it had a lot less historical information around the web, compared to the Senator lists which can be dug up on the Parliament website.

Personally from a historical standpoint, I think is interesting and somthing that may be lost to the sands of time, was the original intent of Senate divisions, when for lack of a better term, the "founding fathers of confederation" had some idea as to how they were really supposed to work but it never seemed to get completed. Or maybe somthing that could be expanded on as a provision for further senate reform.

In case anyone is wondering, I went out and collected signatures to help get candidates for the Senator in Waiting vote in Alberta, because I belive in Senate reform. I don't defend the Senate, and I do think its a blight on democracy in Canada. But it has an interesting history, in Canadian politics that shouldn't be ignored. --Cloveious 05:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alberta divisions

With respected to the table just added by Cloveious and changed by Ground Zero, I am a bit confused. According to the Senate website [3] all three Alberta senators added by Martin represent the province as a whole. This is not reflected in the table. - Jord 5 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond, but that website was slow to update from the original boiler plate information when the senators were appointed. It has the correct information now. I used this link [4] since it updates the fastest

--Cloveious 04:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

I want to move the page name from Canadian Senate divisions to Canadian Senate seats and divisions to evolve the article to cover the entire history of seat evolution by province in the senate and make this a broader article on senate representation. --Cloveious 15:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool your jets. I am not sure that that is necessary as the number of seats seems applicable to this article. If it were moved, I might suggest that Provincial and territorial representation in the Canadian Senate might be a more appropriate and less confusing name. - Jord 15:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
My jets are cool :) Thats why im posting about in the discussion page I like that possibility to, more input is welcome. --Cloveious 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)