Talk:History of Canada (1763–1867)

Images
This page clearly needs images. The War of 1812 article has some pictures, but none of them relate to Canada directly. Any ideas for the Rebellions? -- TheMightyQuill 15:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Slavery in Canada?
Could this article mention Slavery in Canada ? 193.6.218.9 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Indiscrepancy involving the Louisiana Purchase
The article states that France lost all but St. Pierre and Miquelon after the Treaty of Paris, 1763. If that was true, then Napoleon wouldn't have been able to sell the rather large portion of then-named Louisiana (Including the Louisiana south lands, and the north lands dubbed Illinois.) in 1803. It's a rather large discrepancy. I'm aware of how they teach this in school, at least early on, neglecting to mention the Louisiana territory, but this is a rather awkward problem. 74.12.0.200 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Joe
 * Actually, it said they lost almost all of their territory in North America. Another sentence mentioned they kept St. Pierre and Miquelon. Each of those sentences is true. Your misunderstanding, however, was pretty reasonable considering the wording. Your edit made it much more clear, and I just tweaked it a little. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

title problem
British imperial control did not end until 1931; the title should be something like "Canada from the Conquest to Confederation".Skookum1 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the title is somewhat inappropriate. The time period 1763 - 1867 saw a huge shift in the degree of British control from the close control of the military government installed in Quebec immediately after the British conquest, through the founding of a host of new colonies, the attainment of responsible government, and finally Confederation itself.  The most logical title might be "British North America 1763 - 1867", as most of the Provinces or territories would not be considered 'Canada' prior to 1867. Corlyon (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Acadians
One of the things I have learned doing research is that the Acadians were initially actually deported to other English colonies (Massachusetts to Georgia) and not specifically to Louisiana, although many ended up there obviously. Corlyon (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Parallel articles?
What is the distinction between this article and British North America and British colonization of the Americas? Seems to be overlap, maybe at least one should be merged?Skookum1 (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Upper Red River on map
The Rupert's Land charter specifies lands draining into Hudson Bay; and Louisiana is defined by the Missouri drainage (in its USian meaning, though the Spanish said it only referred to the west bank of the Missouri - see Adams-Onis Treaty. What is the basis for showing this area as "undefined boundary"?  Seems a later imposition by USian perspective.Skookum1 (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

British Canada?
Strange that the article was moved without discussion, but User:2601andrew is new so maybe he wasn't aware.

Anyway, couldn't it be easily argued that Canada remained British well after 1866? It was self-governing after 1867, but it was hardly fully independent at least until the Balfour Declaration of 1926. And all Canadians were British subjects until Canadian Citizenship Act 1946. I think the old title makes more sense, even if it is also poor. Thoughts? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page as suggested. Although the current name doesn't seem to have much support, neither has the old name. I'd prefer not to move the page until we find a title that more people can get behind. - GTBacchus(talk) 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

British Canada 1764-1866 → Canada under British Imperial control – Let's move the article back and work on achieving consensus for further moves. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If the title were an implicit assertion that Canada was unBritish after 1866, it would not include a date range. —Tamfang (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move back - "British Canada" is not a term used as often as it was in the past - "Under British Rule"  is well used in the past (as seen bellow) and used today. Also  "British Rule" is the termed used  for other territories of the time like - "India Under British Rule" etc. Moxy (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Support move back - Tamfang, I appreciate what you are saying, but I think the older title is more clear. I'm sure everyone is willing to continue discussing it, but since the move was done without consensus (or even discussion), it makes sense to move it back asap. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sounds far too Marxist! I think an unloaded title such as History of Canada (1763–1867) would be more suitable. History of Canada (1763-1867) redirects here anyway. DrKay (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marxist? It was part of the British empire, and it wasn't technically Canada yet. Not all of it anyway. TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There might be a better title; the proposal isn't it. Srnec (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Well put. Andrewa (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The province of Canada under British rule was renamed Province of Quebec from 1763 to 1791. Therefore the wording of Canada under British rule (1763–1867) is not accurate. --Captain Thor (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment how about Pre-Confederation Canadian British North America (1763-1867) ? 65.94.47.63 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The current name is terrible, but the proposed name isn't great either. Moreover, while I understand that the article covers lands that today constitute Canada back in 1763-1867, it still seems odd to use the name Canada that at the time in question did not apply to most of this territory.  I'd also note that there is significant overlap between this article and British North America - isn't there some way the two could be merged, notwithstanding the slight variation in dates and Oregon?  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WOW odd - this should be moved back to the stable title it had for years. "British Canada" is OR.Moxy (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment about title
We recently had this title changed (page moved) and need more input on this by those that have a knowledge of history. As of now this article  was moved from a  stable title it held for many years (Bout 100 years ago)  to a new title that noone realy approves of. As per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle the old title should go back. Not sure how we got to this point were a new editors has changed this and we cant put it back. Moxy (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - To suggest title changes, the best process to use is WP:RM, rather than WP:RFC, because the former is more specific (focusing on the title).  On the other hand, RfC may get more attention, or not.  In any case, whether you use RM or RFC, you need to specifically propose a new name, so that other editors can say "Support" or "Oppose".  This RfC, as you have it now, is too vague, and it is not clear what title you are proposing as the preferred title. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ... also, I suggest that you list the top 3 to 5 candidate titles, and let people !vote on them (first choice, second choice, etc) .. that is often more illuminating than just focusing on 2 alternatives. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of putting three candidates below. Interested editors should put their name below the their top 1 or 2 preferred titles, along with a brief comment explaining why. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't those two suggestions contain en dashes rather than hyphens? MOS:DASH applies. We won't be able to fix them later because of an injunction by ArbCom. Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done that. DrKay (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ... also, I suggest that you list the top 3 to 5 candidate titles, and let people !vote on them (first choice, second choice, etc) .. that is often more illuminating than just focusing on 2 alternatives. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of putting three candidates below. Interested editors should put their name below the their top 1 or 2 preferred titles, along with a brief comment explaining why. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't those two suggestions contain en dashes rather than hyphens? MOS:DASH applies. We won't be able to fix them later because of an injunction by ArbCom. Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done that. DrKay (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

British Canada 1764–1866

 * Second choice --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Canada under British rule (1763–1867)

 * Only logical option and only one with refs - its the most accurate title. "British rule" should be in the title again as per refs above. Moxy (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Yes, this makes sense to me, for reasons stated. I'd prefer some reference to Empire, but I suppose it was still part of the empire until the Commonwealth was invented decades later. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice - Per references provided by Moxy. --Noleander (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, although I would prefer History of Canada under British Rule (1763–1867), just to ensure clarity that it's a history article - but I can live with or without the "History of" bit.  PK  T (alk)  14:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be the most logical and descriptive title. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is the clearest option. Berek (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

History of Canada (1764–1866)
*First choice. This article is in the NavBox for "History of Canada" template, and focuses on one century of Canada's history. The British rule aspect is important, but really it is the dates that are most meaningful and neutral. --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is ultimately a daughter of History of Canada & so should logically be a "sub-era", just like others.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  12:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What Just like the other ? have you seen the title of the other pages? Post-Confederation Canada (1867–1914), Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years
 * True. But if there is no solid consensus on a single "non year" title, using the year-based title is a good, neutral option. --Noleander (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Canada was not a country yet - What is being suggested here would be that same as moving the Thirteen Colonies to History of the United States (1607-1733). Both were not a country  yet. We cant go around making up countries in times periods  were they have not even been formed. During this time Canada in simply a province of British North America not a country yet. I think I will get some more Canadians involed here.Moxy (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this argument. All the suggested titles except the merge proposal include "Canada" in the title. So, it applies to all those suggestions equally. According to this argument, the suggestion you've supported is equivalent to "United States under British rule". I don't see how you can support one and oppose the other. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One is a correct title as per the refs above and the other is just a made up title that happens to fit because some dont understand the situation. Again this would be like  changing  New France to History of Canada 1534-1763, we have proper titles for this times why would we not use them?Moxy (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of books called "History of Canada"; it clearly is not a made up title. Again, your example of New France argues for "British North America" as the title not the option you've selected. DrKay (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are thousands of books called "History of Canada" and  they all refer to this time period as "Canada under British rule" (as seen below). British North America covers alot more then just Canada as seen at File:British America.png. Not sure why this is so hard to understand - are people not looking at the refs?? In fact i am the only one giving refs for this name chang. Canadians twice revolted against "British rule" to achieve what they call “responsible government" and the title "Canada under British rule" reflects that fact.Moxy (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Canada under British rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012021238/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/145152/history/ to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/145152/history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 08:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Canada under British rule → History of Canada (1763–1867) – The page name does not accurately reflect the content of the article. This article is only about the history of Canada between the years 1763 (Treaty of Paris) and 1867 (Confederation). It does not include the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century when Canada was still under British rule. Unless this article is going to include the history of Canada up until the Statute of Westminster, it should be moved to a new name. TrailBlzr (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is confusing while the proposed title is in a format that anyone familiar with Wikipedia titles will understand to be part of a series that covers a nation's history. Colin Gerhard (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. More accurate. DrKay (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but prefer a no-parentheses version, e.g. History of Canada 1763–1867 or History of Canada, 1763–1867. No need for parens here, it's not that there's multiple senses of the phrase "History of Canada", but rather a normal running-text narrowing of scope.  SnowFire (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See History of Canada, Prehistory to 1st century BC in Canada, Post-Confederation Canada (1867–1914), Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years which might need a name change, History of Canada (1945–1960), History of Canada (1960–1981), History of Canada (1982–1992) and History of Canada (1992–present). In short, the parentheses are there when years are concerned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Maybe there should be a follow-up MR to standardize the whole set?  I know various other articles elsewhere also use the years in parentheses but I feel it's a bad fit for "History of Foo".  SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.