In the following paragraph from the entry a few things are not clear at all:
¨The main differences between Canadian and US political culture seems to be, aside from these theoretical matters, the Canadian dedication to universal health care, and commitment to gun control, however futile given the quarter-billion guns (more than people) in the United States.¨
1. the 250 million guns you are quoting, are they in Canada or the US?
- seems clear they're in the US, the prase is 'quarter billion guns in the United States' - if you find the wording difficult, you can change it. I don't.
And the resulting questions that arise from them being either in Canada or the US:
2. If they are in the US, then why the comment that it is futile - if the US is not commited to gun control?
- it's futile or may be futile considering the 5000-km undefended border that is even more weakly guarded on the Canadian than US side. Guns can so easily be transported by so many means, that a Canadian who wants a gun has no trouble getting an illegal gun from the US.
3. If they are in Canada, then why quote the figure at all, and why compare it to the population of the US?
- there'd be no point in that,but I don't think that is what it says. Admittedly it assumes one realizes these facts about the border (huge, loose) and the US notoriously-lax gun control.
--Sascha Noyes
This article needs an immense amount of work, and should probably be coordinated with Political_culture:United_States at least in form.
The basic idea of using w:Thomas Jefferson's ideals and habits to compare the two states seems rational, but obviously the present text is very much tongue in cheek.
It should be neutralized with subheadings like 'race relations', 'public education', etc. which is easy enough to relate to Jefferson's own lists of his ideas. If the same headings are followed in [[w:Political_culture:United_States and these issues are summarized in w:US-Canada_politics_compared, the three articles become particularly useful, as they will basically describe two states against the same contemporary ideal at the point where they diverged in history, and then compared against each other as presently realized. A very good structure.
Also, it's enough to say that Jefferson and Hemings could walk down the streets of Toronto as a couple and smoke marijuana openly (recently Canada's marijuana laws have been tossed out by the courts, at least in Ontario). It's not essential to the article to claim that Jefferson grew hemp or had an affair with Hemings - these assertions belong in the article on Jefferson himself, with attributions sufficient to ensure that they aren't easily reversible.
Thanks, Two16, for being patient, this article will be at least as good as w:US-Canada_politics_compared within a week, if not, just hack it apart ______
When somebody in the community wanted expaination for simply purging all the information, rather than salvaging what ever content was there. I wrote: edited for relevance and continuity
The article got off to a false start with:
Canadian political culture is in some ways part of a common North American political culture, emphasizing constitutional law, religious freedom, personal liberty and regional autonomy, and generally deriving from the ideas of Thomas Jefferson on these matters.
Usually some mention is made of a common heritage through British Common Law with other English speaking countries,Quebec's Civil Code derived from Roman law, First Nations, the British Empire, the Conscription Crisis , vast geography and short history ....
Most emphatically the Canadain political ideals of "Peace, Order and Good Government" evolved in Great Brittain and pre-Confefederation Canada and are very distinct from Jeffersonian "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The second paragraph contains additional sperious Jefferson material, falsely says that Canada bans private private universities (education is provincial matter under BNA Act (1867) Section 92), opens 9 links to empty pages including BCBud and Canada's Marijuana law
The title is going to be impossible for to write a standard opening sentence for. (The first sentence uses the title of the article bolded in a complete sentence). The article must be renamed.
I know that you have made changes since I wrote this :but I'm leaving it in so you understand why I purged it:
It isn't worth having especially given the high chance that an article is emerging right now (possibly spun off from a large article where it will have had a chance to grow under the care of many minds and many hands. An article like that is going to avoid blind spots and use the skills experience and knowledge of many people).
An article this shoddy and top of the head is more trouble to edit than to writte new.
We are writing in a particular genre: Encyclopedia. It has its own rules and conventions. Naming conventions helps with the search engine. One other thing comments get added at the bottom. It equivilant to drivng on the same sifde of the street. A wiki is not a good fforum for threaded discussions.
142 I dont want to chew up any more talk space which is not relate to this article. You can leave a message on my talk page. Two16
---
All right, this is useful at least, and the principle of clearing space for more carefully written comment is partially agreed, but in my experience the way to get that extra comment is to sketch in the structure of whole articles even if you are just trying to get others involved (some call it 'trolling').
- There are more efficeint ways of building the wikipedia. I'm not so sure that you are qualified to comment to this. We are here to write an encyclopedia.
Opening a lot of links to empty pages is a deliberate strategy as well, since both the odd history of marijuana growing in BC and the emegence of BC Bud as a near-brand-name, and the odd history of marijuana laws in Canada (more of a current event), need their own articles just to explain what is going on and how weird it is. Having nine links to unwritten articles that are all worth writing is a feature, not a bug. It's a bug if they are not worth writing.
- People with much more experiencce beg to differ. All those links may
: have already have articles. By opening aa new article when every you want creates weeding work for others that taks them away from writing brilliant prose.
You are correct on the ban point, but here's the details: universities are a provincial matter, but as a point of fact all provinces did ban them until one (Ontario) removed that ban a couple of years ago. To date none have opened, and some think that union activity in public universities will prevent that. In terms of a Political Culture of Canada article, this one belongs more in Political Culture of Ontario...
- Ontario is part of Canada, so the statement in the article is false.
If the issue with writing is style, say so in the comment, without weasel words like 'relevance' or 'continuity'. As for the clunky start, agreed, but the point of it was to stickwith the silly one-sentence stub that was there and hopefully attract the initial contributor of it (obviously interested in the topic but unsure of what to say) back in. So extending it seemed like the best way to keep the conversation going, and get that user back in, contributing.
- I'm glad that you are thinking of the Encyclopedia. However the
- Wikipedia has had much practical experience evolving content. The
- method that you suggest has been rejected as inefficient. You do not
- have to reinvent the horse. Open source communities are a process: as :: a newcommer you may have difficulty precieving that at first.
New articles simply aren't going to meet all the style requirements especially if they are written by new authors. Better to get them laid out messily as in essay-writing, all thepoints covered,and then clean them up after a week or so.
- No, arguement to your first sentence. Best to do it in a word processor
- where it will be safe and nobody will think it should be dumped on the : basis of quality.
You still have not responded to my criticism of your thesis. Hoping that you will study how to do it. Use help button to bring you to editing policy. Check out newcommers on the first page.
Patience would be required for that, though. 142
Patience is require to work so that the Wikipedians work together like an eightman rowboat.