Talk:Nova Scotia

Introduction & History sections
Due to lack of access to internet for days at a time, the dispute resolution case for these sections has been closed without adequate discussion. The matter present is two-fold: Representing, in the introduction, Wabanaki history on equal grounding and footing as European history; and, beefing up the history section as it pertains to Dawnland prior to post-Norse European colonization.

At the moment, the introduction remains mightily unsourced and extremely Euro-centric. There is but one line mentioning the Mi'kmaw nation and none indicating Wabanaki history or development in the province's birth and growth. There have been attempts to include these histories to no avail. This is not an attempt to include the Mi'kmaw creation story. That was removed, and there is no additional attempt to bring that back onto this page.

These histories include the Peace and Friendship Treaties which hold an equal importance to the Treaty of Paris (1763), especially as they continue to affect the running of day-to-day government operations (the Tripartite Forum, the new official language of the province, the Nova Scotian government's own admission that aboriginal title is an ongoing concern, etc. etc. etc.).

The fact of the matter is that Mi'kmaw history, and Indigenous histories at large, have been and are being written out of our history books. Another example from this page is the current line: "Britain fought France for the territory on numerous occasions for over a century afterwards." Modern historian, Todd Scott, says this: "In the early clashes between the British and Mi'kmaq, the British usually came out on the losing end, new research suggests. The Mi'kmaq were so successful at defending against the settlers, British soldiers were often too scared to leave their forts, according to historical documents." Yet, when I attempt to rewrite the sentence (with two cited sources instead of the current zero!) as: "Britain fought France and the Wabanaki Nations for the territory on numerous occasions for over a century afterwards," it gets erased.

At its core, Acadia and the Maritime provinces were established alongside and atop the Mi'kmaw country: Mi'kma'ki which had, and continues to have, seven/eight jurisdictional districts (like Canadian provinces). The Mi'kmaw nation still use its districts to understand their country's jurisdictions. This means the addition of a line such as: "In 1605, Acadia, France's first New France colony, was founded with the creation of Acadia's capital, Port-Royal, in one of the eight traditional districts of Miꞌkmaꞌki called Kespukwitk" is more than appropriate. It is akin to saying that Goa was established by the Portuguese in the Konkan region in, what was at the time, the Bijapur Sultanate. The difference is that the Bijapur Sultanate no longer exists where Mi'kma'ki does.

Additional notes: Time immemorial is a legal concept, not dramatising speech. The region in which both Mi'kma'ki and Nova Scotia exist is called Dawnland. The government structure of Mi'kma'ki still functions and maintains a government-to-government and nation-to-nation relationship with both the Canadian Crown and Nova Scotia, thus the Tripartite Forum. The transliterated name "Nopa Skoꞌsia" (which I gave two separated cited sources for!) should not have been erased neither in the header nor in the Etymology section. And, finally, Mi'kmaw Law is just as important as French Law and English Law, or "Netukulimk," "Civil Code," and "Common Law," respectively. It is the governing law of Mi'kma'ki, and the Peace and Friendship Treaties offer it real and true protection in ways that Civil Code does not have in a province with a large Acadian community. There is a reason the provincial and federal governments keep going to court over Indigenous issues, even though (and I quote) this page is apparently "not the place for laws and myths of one group comprising only 0.51% of the population."

I will leave this discussion on this somber note: On 4 June 2019, PM Justin Trudeau said “we accept the findings of the commissioners [of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission] that it was genocide.” From the Canadian Encyclopedia's article on the matter: "In 2018, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights decided to change its description of the atrocities committed against Indigenous peoples in Canada from 'cultural genocide' to 'genocide.'" The academic and policy model created by Gregory Stanton, the founding president of Genocide Watch, for understanding genocide lists "Denial" as the tenth and final stage of the act. The denial of the atrocities and the abject erasure of Indigenous histories is rampant on this continent. A Ohio State University article succinctly writes about the long history of Indigenous erasure (mainly from a US perspective; but, it is applicable to Canada as well), a history that extends back to the papal bulls inciting the "Doctrine of Discovery" which legally erased Indigenous land claims to their own countries due to them not being Christian. What is happening on this page is the denial of Wabanaki history and of treaty-protected Mi'kmaw sovereignty to overlapping territories, a denial which directly has roots in the genocidal history of the province itself. Please consider this as we move forward in updating the page.

PS – By citing genocide and actions that have roots therein, I am not targeting any one user nor seeking to place blame. I simply wish to a) update this page to a more truthful and equitable composition, and b) demonstrate what scholars, institutions, commissions, and whole governments are saying: Genocide happened, and our words and actions cannot ignore that fact. Again, this is not over-dramatising, I am quoting institutions, scholars, governments, et al. using legal terms (aka "time immemorial" and "genocide" which have set legal definitions). I do not throw this information around lightly, but when I call out erased and receive a response like "Spare me your drama about censorship," we must understand the context in which the censorship and erasure is occurring. There is a reason the Mi'kmaw nation "only [comprises] 0.51% of the population."

We are not falling into the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS trap. We are citing modern and historical sources in good faith and writing at an encyclopedic level. This is not drama, this is truth.Danachos (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Great info for main articles like Miꞌkmaq and Wabanaki Confederacy... would need to fix all the plagiarism from the camp site and others first (second time requested) need to review COPYPASTE again pls. Will ask for page history deletion shortly . Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This article is not a soapbox or place to right past wrongs. The proposed addition is out-of-scope, and unbalances the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, Magnolia677, this is a page for historical accuracy about Nova Scotia. Ignoring treaties that have ongoing relevance to day-to-day government applications is not out-of-scope.
 * I would like to direct anyone besides these two editors to what was written by Magnolia677 on the DRN in regards to this piece: "This Indian tribe covered an area much larger than Nova Scotia, so adding five paragraphs and two photos unbalances the article. Moreover, the text is hardly relevant to this article about a Canadian province. Maybe if this tribe had made a large contribution to the province's development--built a railway or a university--then of course, but five paragraphs about their superstitions and treaty signing does not improve the article."
 * The use of "Indian" and "tribe" for describing an "Indigenous" "nation" of several "First Nations" should indicate from the get-go that this editor is commenting on matters outside of their scope, misunderstanding modern Canadian realities of Crown–Indigenous relations. The use of "superstitions" to describe documented (and, again, sourced and cited) histories (and, doubly again, not creation stories) is cause for concern. But, importantly, second, the reliance upon contemporary economic impact in order to write about historical realities (ignoring the whole point that the Mi'kmaq, and other Indigenous nations, were systematically excluded from economic activities due to the institutionally and governmentally defined genocide against their nation. Again, this is not righting wrongs or soapboxing, this is literally just writing plain and simple (and sourced and cited) history.
 * Moxy, what plagiarism? Where was it requested previously?
 * In terms of "great info for main articles," why have the following on these articles?: Information about previous rulers, clans, dynasties, and empires in Tamil Nadu's opener; information about Muslim invasions, kingdoms, and counties in Catalonia's; and, most similarly, a huge, bloated paragraph about the Irish War for Independence and the Troubles on the Northern Ireland article. Would it not be best, then, by your metric, to erase the third paragraph and much of the second of the NI page because that is "great info for main articles" like the above mentioned two?
 * PS – Please note this section has been reformatted to the best of my ability to improve readability. (I copied and pasted the responses above the "Content in dispute" response, and made the "Content in dispute" a sub-section below these responses). I promise none of the comments have been changed; just their location (and, thus, font size) has been updated. Danachos (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Your long paragraph about genocide: it seems to be, in plain words, alleging that if people do not allow your extensive and transformative edits to this article, that they are taking part in an alleged genocide by denying that genocide by not allowing your collection of edits to occur. It's a little inflammatory. JM2023 (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Founder of Genocide Watch, Gregory Stanton, created a tool: "the ten stages of genocide," of which the 10th is genocide denial.
 * The fact of the matter is that the abject erasure of Mi'kmaq from this page (aside literally nine sentences) is a form of denial. It not only denies history, but it denies realities that even the governments of Canada, Nova Scotia, and Mi'kma'ki recognize and affirm, as evidenced in the links above. The sources and the phrasing in the small but, yes, transformative edits are from modern-day governments and scholars.
 * It seems inflammatory because North American history is firmly in the tenth stage of genocide. To see it paralleled, consider the article on Turkey saying "The land that comprises what is now Turkey was inhabited by the Armenian people at the time of Ottoman contraction."
 * You can see the denial at work in your own comment: "an alleged genocide" when talking of established fact, both by commissions (source) and by PM Trudeau himself (source2). Danachos (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of denying genocide is very inflammatory and not appreciated. regardless, a government is not a source on whether a genocide happened, just as it is not a source on whether a genocide did not happen. Turkey's government has consistently denied the Armenian genocide. You must establish a that there is a consensus in the sources first -- verifiability, not truth -- and neither of the sources you just gave me refer to a genocide of the Mi'kmaq. Not to mention the fact that the edits you propose may or may not be undue -- the reason this article is "Eurocentric" is because it is about a European-founded political entity and their conflicts with each other and with the Mi'kmaq, not the Mi'kmaq themselves. JM2023 (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Content in dispute:



 * Danachos (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed move for Halifax history page
I propose that the Wikipedia article about the history of Halifax and the HRM, currently found at Community of Halifax, Nova Scotia, should be moved to History of Halifax (former city) and the Halifax Regional Municipality. The name is a bit longer and clumsier than I would prefer, but it's more logical than the current name because it accurately reflects the actual page topic. Feel free to join the discussion. Carguychris (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be moved. The current title is not an accurate description of what the page is about.  I think it could just be "History of Halifax".  It's the general term, and I don't think the title should be too hung up on the details of municipal government. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I actually edited the request to simply History of Halifax, Nova Scotia, which is already a primary redirect. Carguychris (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Topographic Map Error
The topographic map in the "Geography" section is wrong. It shows a border between mainland Nova Scotia and Pictou Island, and that island itself is greyed out as if it were not a part of the province. Pictou Island is in fact a part of this province. All four Wikipedia articles for Pictou Island, including the English Wikipedia article for it, state that Pictou Island is indeed part of it. If someone more experienced than me is willing and able to correct the error, they should do so. JM2023 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Reverted to an earlier version, as it was at 11:46, 8 November 2023‎
Danachos - you are well aware of the dispute involving you, Moxy, and Magnolia677. You proposed significant revisions to the article and received pushback against it, including most recently from me. Disappointed to see that you've just gone ahead months after and made those edits anyway despite the obvious lack of consensus and the obvious disagreement, without so much as a talk page section. I've reverted to an earlier version until consensus can be reached, one way or another. As others have said, this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it's not a WP:SOAPBOX. I won't tolerate accusations of genocide denial like you aimed at me last time. JM (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Pre-confederation status
@JM2023, what citation do you need that Nova Scotia was a British colony before it was a province? Would it be enough if I grabbed any of the article's existing sources that refer to it as a colony? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If you can find an RS that refers to it as either "Nova Scotia Colony" or "Colony of Nova Scotia" it would be good. I didn't do an exhaustive search but I didn't find it referred to that way anywhere else on Wikipedia (same for NB and PEI).
 * As far as I know, although they were colonies, they were not titled "Colony of [blank]" or "[blank] Colony", and were just simply known by their basic names, in the same way that, for example, New Caledonia is a French colony simply referred to with its basic name.
 * But if you can find RS saying that these provinces were indeed officially called ex. "Nova Scotia Colony / Colony of Nova Scotia" then it would be an interesting addition, I just don't think they were, which is why I'm challenging it in the first place. Even if you find a source, it's not necessarily a good-enough source to verify anything, so it would have to be a pretty good source (maybe a government source?).
 * As for your second version where it was stated as "Nova Scotia colony" I don't think that's a meaningful addition because it's a strangely-phrased description, not an official name. But I wonder if it could instead say "British colony of Nova Scotia" or simply "British colony" (I prefer the latter over the former, especially if it's a description of "pre-confederation status") but I'm not really sure if that's significant enough to include either. JM (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just fyi, even as a colony, when they needed to affix a "full name" for the colony, it was more often than not called the "Province of Nova Scotia".
 * See:
 * Treaty of 1752
 * Proclamation for Election, 1758
 * Statutes of NS, 1851
 * Leventio (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I didn't expect it to be named "colony" anywhere and I figured there was a good reason it wasn't in the article after 22 years (this article is older than me!) JM (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with "British colony of Nova Scotia" or "British colony" or "colony with the same name" or "Nova Scotia (colony)" or anything similar. I do think it is useful for every province's infobox to have the same field saying what is was before it became a province. In the case of Nova Scotia, the answer to that question might be less interesting than for Newfoundland or Quebec, but I think it should be in the infobox for the sake of consistency with the other provinces. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think another issue that has to be considered is that many provinces have articles for their former statuses (i.e. Newfoundland was a Dominion and Quebec was the Canada East division of the Province of Canada. And out west and up north it would mostly be NWT). But for a province like Nova Scotia, where it was always just "Nova Scotia" and simply joined confederation and became a federal constituent, the article covers all of Nova Scotia's history, from colony to province. Logically, there need not be a "pre-confederation" line in the infobox for such cases, as pre-confederation is still the same article; if I were the only one deciding, I would simply omit the pre-confederation line altogether.
 * Also see above, where Leventio shows that when it was not simply Nova Scotia it was "Province of Nova Scotia" anyway (although that itself may simply be a capitalized noun that is not part of a title, given its from the era where all nouns were often capitalized).
 * Like I said, on a sliding scale from "Nova Scotia Colony" to "British colony" to nothing at all, obviously "British colony" is closer to what I want (nothing) than "Nova Scotia Colony". It's not like I can reasonably stop you from adding what you want to the article without having to go through an ordeal, but I would strongly recommend that there just not be a line about pre-confederation in the infobox, given the above. JM (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)