Talk:Canada (New France)

Untitled
The main problem with WP's coverage of New France is that there is little continuity between the different locales. Americans editors have made the Louisiana page very good, but much of it duplicates the main page. Meanwhile the main page concentrates way too much on Canada, and neglects Acadia, Louisiana, etc. There is a separate page for the colony of Canada but it is mostly unused. To help readers, and editors get a better understanding of how New France was organized. I proposed this new Navbox template. The first section I am committed to and eventually I want to see it on this page regardless. The rest is open to debate and change.
 * PROTOTYPE NAVBOX DELETED

What do you think? Is it too broad, too narrow? Would a list of topics be better? Thanks for the imput. Kevlar67 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken link
Under Notes, this link no longer works: NRC. "New France c. 1740", in The Atlas of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, 2003-10-06, retrieved 13 December 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.198.118 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Restoring original dates
There seems to have been some very odd changes to the article's dates. I will be fixin all this guess eorh with sources that actually mention this area. Starting point will be The sources used for this so lots of French ones. Seem to be some real confusion going on with the recent edits. This colony was not formed till the creation of Quebec 1608...that said some historians say 1603 when the French charter was granted. [User:Moxy|Moxy]] (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources I will be using


 * You realize that the area claimed as New France was called Canada? Cartier's third voyage was 'to the country of Canada' in his accounts. Your link shows the five colonies of New France, of which Canada is one. And by that map you can see that the area under discussion in 1534 is in Canada, and was known as such at the time, in fact the St-Lawrence River was called the Canadian river or the River of Canada depending on the translation. Saying Canada was claimed/established/discovered/whatever in 1534, and saying the same thing of New France, is in fact saying the same thing. The former is more appropriate in this article, as this article is specific to Canada, not to the more general New France. trackratte (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes best read ParkmanLevin1983....but in no way do i agree that historians portray Canadian history to only this one district. Simply not how its done .....done so little that the term "Canada" for that period is rarely mentioned.  I am not sure why you what to lead our readers away from the parent article on this time period to one that has barley any info because as as a whole history books talk about New France as a whole...not just the St Laurence. I really do not fell right about these changes as history books do not call this area a colony......but a district until there were people there in 1608.  I am going to have to restore many links till this is solved. In history we dont follow the name but the area of the period.-- Moxy (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * New France wasn't a colony either. And Canada is used at the time. Cartier's voyages themselves state their 'voyages to the country to Canada. Incidentally, I had the pleasure of seeing an original copy of his voyages published in 1660, which I thought super interesting. The official date of establishment, for as we both know no actual settlement was then in place, of both Canada and New France were as of the official raising of the cross. This even happened in what was called Canada at the time. So, as far as I'm aware, we're in perfect agreement on what actually happened, when it happened, and where it happened. The only real point of contention is to link to the general New Framce article, which territorial covers all of North America from north to south along the east and is just as much a part of American history, or the French Canada article, which is this one. For the record, feel free to remove "colony" from the outside blue links, it is used as a general term, this article is of course not titled "colony of Canada". trackratte (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup...should not make up terms like "colony of Canada" nor should we omit the other areas that are now part of Canada. Historians dont follow names but areas.  I think its very misleading to link to just a district thus omitting a link to knowledge of Canada as a whole. Can you explain why Acadia and Newfoundland should be omitted from Canadian history from this time period?  Search colony of Canada or Canada  1600s very different things. We need to present the info as historians do and use terms our readers can research with.   -- Moxy (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. Um..."colony of Canada" is not a made up term. See Historical Atlas of Canada: From the beginning to 1800, ("it included the Gulf of St. Lawrence, explored by Jacques Cartier in the 1530s, and the entrance to the colony of Canada (New France)...(1763) there had been three British colonies in the area that would remain as British North America after the American Revolution: Quebec, the core of the truncated French colony of Canada (pl 42); Nova Scotia; and Newfoundland"), or American Invasions: Canada to Afghanistan, 1775 to 2010 ("colony of Canada was successfuly defended against US invasions...In 1783 the USA was a tiny strip of land surrounded by a much larger English colony of Canada in the North...") as two examples, one Canadian perspective and the other American.
 * 2. "Historians don't follow names but areas" is a ridiculous and arrogant statement, unless you truly believe to speak for all of the world's historians. Historians follow their subject, if it is a nation or a people their history will follow them and normally under a single name (for example the 'history of the Celts' will not focus on a place), whereas something like the 'history of North America' would focus on a place.
 * 3. "Can you explain why Acadia and Newfoundland should be omitted from Canadian history from this time period?" Yes, because Acadia and Newfoundland were not part of Canada during this time period . Their histories during this time period are covered under their respective topics, ie "Acadia" or "Newfoundland". If you look at Canada's Founding Debates you can see how Newfoundland was against being "sold to the Canadians". You can also see anti-Confederation statements made during the debates in British Columbia against the desire for British Columbia to become a "colony of Canada", etc. These separate colonies which were separate and independent from Canada were, at the time, simply not Canadian nor apart of Canada. They have their own histories apart from Canada. To say that Newfoundland was Canadian in the 1800s is revisionist thinking, applying today's situation to the past. If you want to provide a "history of the territories now covered by Canada" you have to be explicit and say so.
 * 4. As we have gone over, and as the sources and the Wiki articles themselves have always stated, Canada was not "just a district", Canada itself consisted of districts. These are the facts: Canada was a separate colony within New France with its own colonial government. It is this colony, Canada, that was handed over to the British and became the "English colony of Canada", not Acadia (which were then two separate British colonies), and not Louisiana (which was a Spanish colony). Newfoundland of course remained a separate British colony and did not join with Canada until 1949. The colonies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia joined with the colony of Canada in 1867. After 1867, other British colonies and territories joined with or were added to the colony of Canada. Eventually the colony of Canada ceased being a colony at all (1926, 1931, 1952, 1965, 1977, 1982 all being important dates in that regard), and was by 1982 a fully independent and sovereign state. trackratte (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you not taken the time to read the books I have linked for you? Your dates are correct but way off on how we disscus Canadian history. This is very worrysome....I will have to watch out make sure you don't do the wrong thing in our history articles. Acadian not part of Canadian history is most ignorant thing I have heard in a long time...not sure if it's a racist statement or simply lack of knolage of our history. --Moxy (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I never said it wasn't part of Canada's history. I am saying it is not part of Canada's history in the 1500s which is what this article is about, and which is the topic of this discussion as we are in the Canada (New France) article talk page. Perhaps you should take a pause, as you are now calling other editors "racist" for saying that the colony of Acadia is beyond the scope of an article about the French colony of Canada, which it is as Acadia was never part of Canada (New France) but was a separate colony. Cool it on the personal attacks and wantonly calling others racist. trackratte (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Omg I am lost at what your saying.....you were replacing links to New France all over linking this article.....that has basically no info about the dates your refering to over the New France article that is dominated by this period and area....the whole article is basically about this region. You were doing this saying Acadian and Newfound is not part of Canadian history. Either people don't undrstand or your not explaining this right. Perhaps best if you move some info from the New France to here.....because it looks like your trying to lead our readers away from an article full of information about Canadian history...wars...political system..etc... to this article that has literally zero information on Canada as a whole.--Moxy (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I was putting in Canada, New France when the article/paragraph was discussing Canada in the 16th and 17th centuries, as this region (St-Lawrence) was known as "Canada" since the 16th century, and its people were known as "Canadians". New France is not specific to this area or the Canadian people, but instead covered much of North America and a variety of peoples, all the way from Louisiana to Hudson's Bay to Acadia. Second, the link to the New France article is still present, so no, readers are not being led away, they are getting links to the specific article in question, as well as the more general New France article. If you feel that the Canada, New France article can be added to, then that's all good.

This debate might be resolvable by clarification / separation of terminology. I think that the meaning of "Canada" in this article is a historical entity which was a subset of New France. A very different meaning than the current meaning of "Canada".  North8000  (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what this article is about, clearly. So, agreed. The title is "Canada (New France)", and begins with "Canada was a French colony which was first discovered and claimed on 24 July 1534...". We could adjust it to "Canada was a French colony within New France..." to make it clearer if we wish. The evolution is fairly simple: Canada (French colony, 1534-1763) --> Quebec (British colony, 1763-1791) --> Canada (British colony, 1791-1841) --> Canada (British colony, 1841-1867) --> Dominion of Canada (British colony 1867-1931) --> Canada (sovereign state, 1931-present). The Canada article is the parent article to all of those just mentioned, as its focus is the Canada of today yes, but covers Canada's history holistically, summarizing everything from the French colony of Canada to the present day. trackratte (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * (copy of my post at the New France article.) I agree with about 98% of Trackratte's analysis, but the other 2% might be the actual point in contention. Is it about internal links at the "Canada (New France)" article?  IMO both links to Canada and New France would be fine, but the link to New France would be more useful to the readers. New France was the geographic framework for the historical entity which is the subject of the article,  and is necessary to fully understanding the article or expanding upon what is learned in it.  North8000  (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * North, as far as I'm aware this is not about internal links within this article. If it is, this is the first time I'm hearing of it. My understanding of Moxy's point are the links from other articles linking to this one. But if we are interpreting Moxy's issue in two completely different ways, then it's obviously not even clear what, exactly, it is we are even attempting to resolve. trackratte (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no issues. I discussed it a bit at the New France article but have no issues.  North8000  (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixing up the article
So going to take time this week to work on this article. I guess first I will fix the date...1534 to 1535 .....and explain how the name came up. Will then write about the fishing fleets, first settlement attempts and exploration of the two main basins in the first section. Second section we should talk about the main settlements and how they lived (economic). Third section about colficts and native contributions. Then not sure will work on this as I go.--Moxy (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Cool!  North8000  (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=fC_6DwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA74&dq=new%20france%20Territorial%20expansion%20and%20alliances&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q=new%20france%20Territorial%20expansion%20and%20alliances&f=false  for fist section

Contradictory description
This description of "Canada" as being only Quebec contradicts the maps in article, which show Canada as extending into what is now Ontario and the US. Meters (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you already implemented what you are talking about. I think that what you did is fine. North8000 (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)