Talk:Territorial evolution of Canada

Category:Territorial evolution

I have added this category. I am not sure about the naming but I like Golbez's work and I think eventually every country should have a page like this. Does this seem like a good category? Feel free to tweak and rename but I think we need something. gren グレン 01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it'd be neat to have for a lot of things. In fact, I got a request some time ago to do something similiar for Wisconsin's counties. :) --Golbez 02:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Legend

Nice job, only thing that's missing is a legend, since I read your similar article dealing with the US first, I knew the colours, but it wouldn't hurt to put the same legend on these maps.

I'm amazed at what you've done with these projects, I'm sure someday we'll have "Territorial evolution of the Maldives" or some other equally obscure country, soon! --Canuckguy 03:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the Canada ones first, but published the USA ones second, and I had more input on those, since it was such a large project. I'll get back to doing that for the Canadian ones. :) --Golbez 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

k it has a legend :) --Golbez 10:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between Province and Territory

This may seem like a stupid request, but I often wondered what the difference is between a province and a territory. Is it possible to include more info in this wonderful history of Canada's development to include a definition of these terms for designated areas, and what - if any - political difference there is today between them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.106.196.31 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

That's probably better handled in the Provinces and territories of Canada article, but as far as I know, it's mainly a matter of governance; the provinces are self-governed and have certain inherent rights, whereas the territories have only those rights given directly from Ottawa. --Golbez 16:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometime in 1874

It looks like the date of the agreement on the 1874 Ontario boundary was June 26. [1] --Cam 15:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Two years later and I finally act on this, thanks so much for the link. :) --Golbez (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

manitoba-ontario dispute?

says it existed but provides no cite or link to an article with more details. --24.252.52.108 06:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This was the first of these I completed so the referencing is sub-par, but all of the changes are documented on the Atlas of Canada site linked at the end; the 1881 map on that site mentions the dispute. --Golbez 06:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Known as the Rat Portage dispute (that being the old name for Kenora). Ontario sent in provincial officers to police Ontarian law even though the site had been functionally part of the Manitoban ecumene.....needs more detail here, not sure of sources, what I saw was in Canadian Geographic a long time ago. Riel had wanted the Lakehead as part of his vision of the West, the implication being that if Manitoba had had a Great |Lakes port its economy would have been vastly different (to say nothing of the industries at Ignace and Dryden). Not relevant to this map but of note in Canadian political history is that from the creation of Manitoba until about 1939, all Manitoba legislation had to have the approval of the Onterio legislature/governmentSkookum1 (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

1903

What about the 1903 Alaska Boundary Dispute? -- Esemono (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Alaska Boundary Dispute was a territorial dispute between the United States and Canada (then a British Dominion with its foreign affairs controlled from London), and at a subnational level between Alaska on the U.S. side and British Columbia on the Canadian side. It was resolved by arbitration in 1903. The dispute was inherited by the United States as a consequence of the Alaska Purchase and had been ongoing between the Russian and British Empires since 1821.The commission, which met in London, included three Americans, Secretary of War Elihu Root and Senators Henry Cabot Lodge and George Turner; two Canadians, Sir Louis Jetté and Allen B. Aylesworth; and England's chief justice, Lord Richard E. Webster Alverstone. Alverstone sided with the Americans, forming a majority in favor of the U.S.

Never mind, just saw your note. -- Esemono (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sverdrup Islands

All the maps on this page are incorrect. The Sverdrup islands were terra nullis until claimed by Norway in 1928. They were only discovered in 1898. The Norwegians ceded them to canada in 1930. All of the maps show them as belonging to canada before they were even discovered!XavierGreen (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dependency of Labrador?

This term is used several times on this page, but I can't find it used anywhere else on Wikipedia. AFAIK, The island of Newfoundland and the region of Labrador have always been co-equal parts of Newfoundland, whether as the Colony or Dominion of Newfoundland or the province now named Newfoundland and Labrador. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Added Sub-Headings

I've added a sub-heading for each date. The reason for doing so is that I think it improves the usefulness of the article, by allowing links to particular dates in the territorial evolution. For example, I've been working on various pages about the history of the NWT and Saskatchewan, and it really helps to be able to insert a link to show the area covered by the NWT at a particular time, to explain just how different the map of the NWT was in the late 19th century compared to today. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Change of name for Newfoundland

Regarding this edit, which adds a discussion of the change name for the province of Newfoundland to "Newfoundland and Labrador", I believe that this information does not belong in this article. User Golbez has restored this edit, arguing, "er, no, that's a substantive change to canada, so it stays. if you think the title of the article doesn't allow for this, suggest a new title".

I agree that this is a substantive change to Canada, but I don't agree that it has to be covered here. That event is covered well elsewhere in Wikipedia. I propose that it be removed from the article because it is not a territorial change to Canada. this article need not cover nomenclature changes, constitutional changes, political changes, vexillilogical changes, etc.

Comments? Ground Zero | t 08:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for bringing this to the talk page, and I apologize for the rather brusque edit summary. I think this can be answered easily: If I'm mentioning hypothetical changes to a border of a province in 1950, it would be anachronistic to call said province "Newfoundland and Labrador", and unfair to the reader to call it "Newfoundland" in one spot and "Newfoundland and Labrador" in another spot without ever explaining when and how that change occurred. The name of something is as important as its borders in a subject like this, otherwise you have no continuity of what you're talking about. No one has suggested, either seriously or at all, mentioning constitutional, political, or vexillilogical changes, so I agree, the article need not cover them (though I have considered adding changes to the capital, since that does tend to have important ramifications, but on the other hand, Canada's has never changed). And, if there was a constitutional change that did alter the nature of the divisions - changing them from provinces to states, for example - that would obviously be relevant too, even though it's essentially just a name change. --Golbez (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than including a subsection devoted to the change, it would suffice to include a parenthetical or explanatory footnote? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So, again hypothetical since I like having clean numbers to work with: We would have a section in 1950 that says something happened to "Newfoundland", and in 2010 we mention something happening to "Newfoundland and Labrador (changed name from Newfoundland in 2001[1][2][3])" without further analysis of the issue? I don't see how this is better. Name is a fundamental part of the definition of a political unit. You can't say "X changed its borders" without knowing X, and if X changes to Y, that deserves a first-class explanation rather than a parenthetical, second-class one. (Could be worse - I could include the Iceland ownership change, since the maps necessarily deal with that. :P But that has nothing to do with Canada so there's no point in including in the list. Just the maps. Parenthetically.)

Also, looking at Ground Zero's initial post: "That event is covered well elsewhere in Wikipedia." Most of the events here are, but no one is suggesting the annexation of British Columbia be omitted from the article. It's relevant to this article, regardless of if it's covered elsewhere, so I'm not understanding this statement. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Anachronisms like mentioning "Newfoundland" first and "Newfoundland & Labrador" later are easily dealt with as Nikkimaria suggested. Further explanation can be provided through a wikilink to another article for readers who want more explanation. In an article that mentions Prime Minister Brian Mulroney after mentioning Prime Minister John Turner, it is not necessary to have a section that explains how Mulroney succeeded Turner as prime minister, although a parenthetic remark mentioning that he did so after winning the 1984 election could help the reader.

The name of a province may be as important as its borders, but provinces' names are not the subject of this article. indeed who has governed Newfoundland (Smallwood, Peckford, Tobin, Williams....) has had a bigger impact on the lives of the people of the province than the change of name, but that question shouldn't be dealt with under "territorial evolution" either.

I disagree that a constitutional change (from provinces to states) should be dealt with as "territorial evolution" since such a change is not a territorial change. This article is not called "Important events in Canadian history". It is about territorial evolution. if you want to propose a change to the scope of the article, you can do so here on the talk page. I would oppose such a change because I think that territorial change warrants an article on its own.

I would not support excluding the annexation of British Columbia from the article since that involved a change to the territory of Canada.

The renaming of Newfoundland and Yukon territory did not change the territory of Canada or of any of its subdivisions, so they do not belong in the "Territorial evolution of Canada" article. these events are simply out of scope. Ground Zero | t 02:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"It is about territorial evolution." You have a different definition of that than I, as I consider names to be a fundamental part of understanding the evolution of a country. The change from North-West Territories to Northwest Territories; the change from Arkansaw Territory to Arkansas Territory; the change from Louisiana Territory to Missouri Territory. You claim provinces' names are not the subject of the article? Who are you to say that? I created the article and its scope. They did not appear from the ether for us to inspect and follow. So it is not upon me to propose a change to the scope, it is upon you to either propose a change or elaborate on how the scope is deficient.

I am doing my best to not make this an ownership situation (I love my baby after all), which is why I asked for a suggested name change, but I will pull rank when it comes to altering what I see to be a fundamental purpose of the article. It is a companion to the maps (or vice versa; does it matter?), and the maps will not be altered to remove substantive name changes, at least not by me. I don't see why you're being so firm in removing what at least one user (me) considers to be legitimate information to include here.

I chose "Territorial evolution" a long time ago, and at the time I even thought (I thought I wrote it out loud, but I cannot find an edit) that this may not be the best name; I'm open to suggestions. Please, propose a better name or scope, though I see no deficiencies in the existing scope. --Golbez (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"I am doing my best to not make this an ownership situation" - you are absolutely trying to make this an ownership situation. If you were not, you would not bring this up at all. And you would not emphasize your role repeatedly ("I created the article and its scope... I love my baby... I chose....") You cannot pull rank. That you started the article has no bearing on the situation. This is not your article. It is a Wikipedia article full stop.

I did not appear from the ether. I am a Wikipedia editor of long-standing, have created many articles, saved many from deletion, contributed thousands of edits, and I am an administrator, but that does not allow me to "pull rank" any more than you can pull rank for any other reason. Please see WP:EQUAL.

I recognize the contributions that you have made to this article, and the maps are great. But the question is what is the best scope and name for this article. I think that "Territorial evolution of Canada" is the best name and scope for the article, and that it should not expand to include other concepts liking naming, political governance or anything else. It is best suited as a single purpose vehicle, and let other issues be dealt with in other articles. Ground Zero | t 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We we agree that "Territorial evolution" is an acceptable (if not optimal) title, you just think it only involves the movement of lines, whereas I think it also involves the definition of the entities therein. That's fine. You're going to have to get wider consensus to remove what multiple readers and, at one point, the wider community consider to be relevant, sourced information. --Golbez (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, you and Mediatech492 have taken one position, and Nikkimaria and I have taken another position. Your claim that the wider community supports this is not substantiated. That something hasn't changed for a while is not an argument that it shouldn't be improved. The information on the name change would still remain in Wikipedia here, which could be linked from this article, so this is not about removing sourced information from the encyclopaedia, only about whether it belongs also in this article. Let's see if other weigh in on this. Ground Zero | t 12:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with your statement: "That something hasn't changed for a while is not an argument that it shouldn't be improved." However this means the onus is on you to clearly show that removing this information from this article constitutes an "improvement". Until such reasoning can be provided the article will remain as it is. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It was substantiated when this was made a featured list, including the scoping and the name. Not that I necessarily feel it's featured quality at this point (there's new entries I need to craft maps for and refine), but it certainly wouldn't be if it omitted relevant information. --Golbez (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming is a highly significant part of geography, and changing the formal name of a region can have widespread repercussions. This article is about "territorial changes", not "border changes" and changing a region's name is a fundamental change to the region itself. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a chronicle of the physical evolution of the country, its borders, its internal and external delineation, and definition, which includes type (province, territory) and name. You cannot leave any of these out and still have a total picture. --Golbez (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about the importance of names. Some places have different names at the same time, depending on who's talking, but it doesn't mean the territory isn't the same. A rose by any other name, you know? So maybe it's not really needed here. I think Nikkimaria's idea to use footnotes is a pretty good compromise. If people care about anachronisms they can look at the notes. However, I also think the info is good and should maybe get its own article somehow if we don't keep it here. History of Canadian place names or something. Anyway, that's my take on it. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So, basically, the maps should have the name change, but it should go unmentioned until it becomes necessary? Or it should have the awkward "North-West Territories (until --/--/----) Northwest Territories (after --/--/----)" in one frame of the map? Or, people could be given a total and accurate view of each phase of Canada's history without resorting to efforts like this that only remove information that doesn't remotely clutter things, and makes it harder for the reader to get a complete view of the situation? Basically, what I'm asking here is: What is the benefit of removing name changes? No one has really defended it yet. You might say it doesn't fit the scope, but you haven't yet said how it inconveniences or lowers the experience for the readers, which is who we're here for. It does not confuse; it does not distract; it does not omit otherwise valid information. --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I agree with you there. Personally I like it, but I know that's not really a good argument for keeping it. And I actually kind of do think it fits the scope, I just don't think it's quite as important as you guys are making it out to be and I think footnotes are a good compromise.

Out of curiosity, how do other articles do it? I mean, there are lots of other countries with longer histories than Canada so they must have dealt with this kind of stuff before somewhere else. What's the usual solution? Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made or started all the other articles of this type, so that question doesn't work. :) --Golbez (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But I do have a similar issue. I worked for a little bit on doing this for Indonesia, and a few years ago, they renamed one province from "Irian Jaya" to "Papua". This was an important change to those living there, and to shove it into a footnote would do disservice to both the reader and the importance of the change. And if we're going to include that, we should include all name changes as equal first-class entries, just as I hope to include all boundary changes, no matter how small. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The change of name is part of the "territorial evolution" of Newfoundland & Labrador. It should be included in the article. DigitalC (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment/Aside the map has its issues, I've been watching it and noting them......e.g. while District of Keewatin is shown, the District of Athabasca and District of Assiniboia and other subdivisons of the NWT are not shown.....but re Labrador, the old dispute with Quebec isn't clear from what I've seen in other sources/maps and it's usually shown as a cross-bar colour, at one time only the coast was absolutely British; and when re BC and other places "Great Britain" should be used rather than "United Kingdom". Re BC and Yukon, it's be nice to have a similar territorial evolution map, as BC's shape changed a lot and included other colonies and claims prior to 1870.....it also moves fairly fast, would be better slowed down some. I'm reserving comment on the NL name issue until I read more again....Skookum1 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • re Keewatin: It had a different status from the rest of the districts, and the Atlas of Canada treats it differently. re "Great Britain": The United Kingdom came into being in 1800, long before this map begins. I may at some point go before independence, but as it is this is a chart of Canada, not a chart of the colonies prior to it. While I agree it's useful, I see it beyond the scope of this. However, with Labrador I agree, that could be handled much better. --Golbez (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is a substantive change to Canada. Newfoundland name was changed through a constitutional amendment that required the approval of both the Canadian and Newfoundland legislatures, which is the way the constitution is changed when it affects only one province, rather than the country as a whole. It is unlikely that it required a constitutional amendment, unlike Newfoundland's ending of its denominational school system, since provinces are allowed to change their own constitutions with few exceptions, and have done so numerous times. Quebec for example has changed its original provincial electoral districts many times although they remain for the federal Upper House.

However, I do not see how including Newfoundland's name change detracts from the article. It might be better however to include the name change in the 1949 entry about Newfoundland joining Confederation.

TFD (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

endnote meridian A?

The September 1, 1905 table entry contains an Endnote. Nothing happens when you click the "A". 90.229.34.175 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It was added in 2009 by User:SriMesh. Not sure of its purpose and also not sure what it should do upon clicking. Hwy43 (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Canada provinces evolution 2.gif to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Canada provinces evolution 2.gif will be appearing as picture of the day on July 1, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A map showing the territorial evolution of Canada. At Confederation in 1867, four provinces (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia) were established from three British colonies. This nascent country continued to accrete new provinces and territories, including Manitoba in 1870, British Columbia in 1871, Prince Edward Island in 1873, and Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905; previously established provinces also expanded their borders. The most recent province to be added was Newfoundland in 1949; it has since been renamed Newfoundland and Labrador.

Since the cession of the Northwest Territories to Canada in 1870 and 1880, sections of the territory have been converted several times into new territories (Yukon in 1898, Nunavut in 1999) and provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan), and transferred to expand existing provinces.Animation: Golbez

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Territorial evolution of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090618033543/http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca:80/site/english/maps/historical/territorialevolution/1874/1 to http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/historical/territorialevolution/1874/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Scope

The start point for this article is arbitrary and unsourced. At a minimum this article should reflect the actual sources, for example the Government of Canada's page on the territorial evolution of Canada which begins in 1841. trackratte (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The date of confederation is arbitrary and unsourced? OK, so that article uses use 1841, tracing back to the origin of "Canada" as the name of the political unit. That's their right, but this is about the country of Canada, which began with its status as a dominion (unless you'd prefer we start at 1931? 1982?), not the colonies that preceded it. And I note that the Government of Canada's page on the territorial evolution of Canada - a different one - starts with 1867. --Golbez (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Golbez, the lede as currently phrased is factually incorrect. See the Canada article itself, whose scope is significantly larger than Confederation or only the post-confederation British dominion, but instead starts with the establishment of Canada in 1534. Second, as you can see in the Monarchy of Canada article, and the peer-reviewed academic and other sources regarding this point, "Canada is one of the oldest continuing monarchies in the world.[19][36] Initially established in the 16th century,[n 1] monarchy in Canada has evolved through a continuous succession of French and British sovereigns into the independently Canadian sovereigns of today".

The point being that starting in 1867 is somewhat arbitrary as clearly there were "territorial evolutions of Canada" which happened prior to this date, and I have only done a cursory search, but clearly there are reliable sources outlining these territorial evolutions prior to 1867, including officially from the Government of Canada itself.

As opposed to getting into an edit war, as you've reverted this article twice now, I would appreciate your help in making the lede better, as your latest revert leaves it factually incorrect. Unless of course you wish to change the scope of the article to the "Territorial evolution of the Dominion of Canada", however that would require wider consensus. As a result, I would appreciate your undoing of the latest revert and then working forward together from there, or at the very least adding in the word "Dominion" to at least remove the current factual error in the interim. I hope that is agreeable to you. trackratte (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a French colony of Canada, which was ceded to the British and became the colony of Quebec, which became the colonies of Lower and Upper Canada, which became the colony of Canada. This colony was then merged with several others to create a dominion named Canada, and dominion status seems to be commonly accepted as 'close enough' to a country. From what I understand, the province of Canada was a constituent part of the new country, rather than an entity that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were attached to, right? If so, at that point, the history of the colonies of Canada ended, and the history of the dominion of Canada began.

I've rewritten this reply several times because, as I go, I find new logical issues with my statements, so please bear with me if it seems rambly. But I think there should be an easy through-line for the evolution. For example, the evolution of the 13 colonies should not be included in the U.S. article, yet I would (and have) combine the evolution of, say, the colony and state of Rhode Island into one article, because the entity was largely the same. But, when there's a change in sovereignty, that's a split in the evolution. An article on the evolution of Russia might have sections before 1922 and after 1991, but it should absolutely omit the time in between - at that time, the country of Russia did not exist, and the evolution of a subnational entity (the Russian SFSR in this case) is much different than that of a national one. This may verge on subjectivity, but that's going to happen either way. There's not even an objective notion of when the U.S. was formed: 1776? 1781? 1789? I just chose what I thought was the best definition and ran with it.

But see, as I write this I think, "but what of Australia?" Because it could be awkward to have an article on the evolution of Australia, and then an article on the ... what, evolution of colonies in Australia? But yet, I think that makes sense. (and I think it would be better to treat the colonies as individual entities in that case, i.e. "territorial evolution of New South Wales") I want to omit everything that is not the country, and that means omitting everything before 1901 for Australia, and ... well I'd say 1867 for Canada. But based on my criteria, the date could be 1867, 1931, or even 1982. But not earlier than 1867 - there is no scholarship that says Canada was anything but a colony before then. That's the line between colony and dominion and, again, from what I understand, dominion status is considered 'close enough'. Because, if it's not, then we're looking at 1931 or 1982, and I think neither of us would agree that's where the article should start.

So it seems to me the core questions are thus:

• Do we want to only include entries of a country, or also the immediate preceding ... ... I can't even say portions, because I assume you would want to omit New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which makes this even more difficult to reconcile. The dominion of Canada is not a continuation of the province of Canada; it is a new entity, created by the merger of three colonies. The idea that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would not qualify for showing the earlier evolution must be an argument in favor of taking 1867 as the creation of a new entity.
• When did Canada become a country?
• Would this all be resolved by creating a 'territorial evolution of British North America' to handle the period up to ... well I guess the max would be 1880, when the Arctic Islands were ceded? 1949, when Newfoundland (which de facto had abandoned dominion status) joined Canada? Or present day, thanks to plucky Bermuda and the Caribbean islands? (that actually sounds like it could be a really interesting project... maybe after I finish redoing these maps. And my Soviet Union project. And Australia...)

I won't be undoing it, because adding 'dominion' is not necessary, especially since it ceased being a dominion some time ago. Also, weight goes to the consensus version, and that version had been in place for a decade. You don't get to unilaterally pressure a change to it after all that.

Finally, seeing how this is a featured list, any major change in scope should be discussed with more people than just us. Maybe the Humanities refdesk? --Golbez (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

When I have a moment I would like to go through and reply to your response more thoroughly. However in the interests of allowing percolation and research, Canada was still a colony after 1867, there was no change in sovereignty nor a transfer of authority. The label of "Dominion" was instead of "Kingdom", and was to denote the 'joining together' of several British colonies for economic reasons, but primarily in response to the American Civil War and Minifest Destiny, as the fathers of Confederation very much wanted to 'band together' to keep Canada within the British Empire, and out of American hands.

Second, the U.S. is a different case, as of course it didn't exist until independence, prior to that it was a collection of British colonies, afterwards it was a new, independent country. The same cannot be said for Canada.

If you look at the 1867 Constitution Act, it states (s. 9) that "Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue" and not "created" anew. As Canada was the largest economically and in population, and the central planners and fathers were all almost entirely Canadian, it was very much at least in practice the colonies of NB, and NS joining Canada. Much simply carried over, for example check out the Canada Gazette the legal publications place for all laws, announcements, royal proclamations, etc, which exists unchanged from 1841. Much of the Canadian government leadership simply carried over to the Dominion government. The rules and procedures of the Canadian House of Commons remained unchanged from the Province of Canada to the Dominion of Canada. The Parliament of the Dominion of Canada remained in the former Province of Canada, etc, etc.

When did Canada become a country? That's a nebulous term. Do we mean independent? The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled independence was a process from 1919 and 1931.

When I say changing scope, I mean that simply saying "Canada", as per the Canada article, includes all of its iterations since 1534. Saying upper Canada, Lower Canada, French Colony of Canada, Province of Canada, or Dominion of Canada all mean different specific entities along Canada's evolution. Presently this article has just been changed to use the global term to refer solely to the specific "Dominion".

I think this would be resolved if we just stick to "Canada", and slowly work backwards, such as 1841, and continuing from there. The "Territorial Evolution of British North America" is really a completely separate topic as it covers the 13 colonies, etc which really has nothing to do with Canadian history. Same thing for "Territorial Evolution of New France", as New France extended down to and included the French colony of Louisiana, so the majority of the actual territory may even be within the current United States. Presently, the territorial evolution of Canada prior to 1867 simply isn't captured anywhere, and if it is its ancillary to a wider topic. In this way, I really see various British colonies and territories being various joined with or simply ceded to "Canada" over time. trackratte (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We have had this talk before a long time ago...I cant find it ...but its why we made Former colonies and territories in Canada. The argument above seems to imply we should follow a name not the areas, This notion that all started with the "Colony of Canada" is simply wrong in the context of Canada and New France as a whole. "Colony of Canada" is not first place settled or named that is now part of Canada. Trying to change history all over is becoming a problem in my view....we have stable articles and links for a decades before a new POV pops up out of the blue all over. -- Moxy (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The argument above states that we outline the territorial evolution of Canada, not that we outline the territorial evolution of the Dominion of Canada since 1867. It is a well-documented fact that Canada was a specific region even before the official French claims in 1534 (ie Cartier's voyages to 'the countrey of Canada' in 1541. If you want to restrict the geographic scope of the article to exclusively the "Dominion of Canada" then explicitly do so. The Government of Canada's own version of this article on the gc.ca webspace starts with mentioning Canada in 1791, and the documents the territorial evolution of Canada from 1841 to the present. trackratte (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't be "Dominion of Canada since 1867", it'd be "Dominion of Canada and future entities", since it ceased being a dominion sometime in the 20th century, but started being a dominion in 1867 so we wouldn't need the start date. But that's a bit of an irrelevant, distracting argument. Another Government of Canada site begins at 1867 (linked earlier), so you now have another potential date to choose from based on government sites. Let's get over this argument (that I initially latched on to) that it's about semantics; I hope I'm correct that you're not saying it's simply that they had the same name, but more that there is a throughline of existence between the Colony of Canada, the Canadas, the Province of Canada, and the Dominion of Canada. Right? Because if it's purely about the name then we have some wider issues.

"Presently, the territorial evolution of Canada prior to 1867 simply isn't captured anywhere" It should be! I'm just arguing that it shouldn't be in this article. Prior to confederation, I think it was a different entity, worthy of its own treatment in a different topic.

So, what date would you suggest? You've offered three different ones, 1534, 1791, and 1841. I've offered 1867, 1931, and 1982. We have six to choose from. --Golbez (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not at home and so would have a great deal of difficulty, and take a great deal in time, demonstrating the million ways in which Canada very much existed in June of 1867. Suffice it to say that the Confederation debates in the Canadian House of Commons led by John A Macdonald occurred in Canada, quite clearly. And John A Macdonald carried on leading the country within the Canadian House of Commons afterwards. The unwritten Constitution carried forward as well from one Canada to the other, thus the 'governance and authority is declared to continue' paragraph in the Act. So of course this is not simply a matter of the names being the same or similar. The Canadians very much felt and called themselves, and were in fact Canadians, and such a nationality and culture did not simply magically appear over night on the morning of July 1st, 1867.

Being that this article is about "evolution", I do not see any reason why not to start at the beginning. Human evolution I imagine would start in the same way, not necessary at the modern "man", as what we are today was a continuation of what was there before. In practical terms, we obviously do not want to go all the way back to single cell organism, so the normal determination would be what is recognizeable "human" from today, and I would think the same logic would apply here. Thus, the official cross raising (claim) by France over Canada during Jacques Cartiers "voyages to the countreys of Canada, Hochelaga, and Saguenay" serve as the first start point. From this point forwards we see a steady evolution of various governments and people (who called themselves Canadians at least by the 17th century, these same people who call themselves Canadians today) continually evolving to where we are today. I was merely pointing out the fact that the Gov of Can clearly itself starts in 1841 on at least one official publication, so starting prior to 1867 makes a great deal of sense, and furthermore cannot simply be labelled as "wrong". trackratte (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. So what date would you suggest? 1534, 1791, 1841, 1867, 1931, or 1982? --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop the guess work pls.....we don't guess at what the meaning of goverment documents.....we call that OR. Please read a history book to see how historians view this. Simply not acceptible for you guys to guess at what is best based on your personal interpretation of government documents....as we follow academic sources.....stop the guses work. .... find academic sources that explicitly say what you want to say. You will notice that the territorial Evolution and the political Evolution og Canada are two very different things-Moxy (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No guess work here. I can find myriad sources that say Canada became a country in 1867. Some say it became a country, but not independent; some say it was a unit on the world stage, but still a colony; but none say it became a country in 1841, or 1791, or 1534. Easily more think it became a country in 1931 or even 1982 than those. --Golbez (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup 1867 - we even teach our grade 5 students this and is why we have Canada day.Prime Ministers of Canada Gr. 4-8. On The Mark Press. 2004. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-1-77072-750-2. There is no debate about this fact in the academic community. This article is about Canada and not any-other Territory or colony that was here before. We have other articles that could be expanded like Territorial evolution of North America prior to 1763 or Former colonies and territories in Canada. This notion that Canada was formed prior to 1867 is simply not backup by academic sources...yes Canada's "political autonomy" is debate from time to time but the formation of a "new country" and the "territorial evolution" of that new country is not debated. I understand some may think that New France was the start of the country because of a name...but thats simply not how territorial history works. Canada vs Dominion of Canada is not a different term ...why??? because here in this article we are talking about a country named Canada - not a French colony or British Provinces with the same name. -- Moxy (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Speaking of sources, the Dominion of Canada in 1867 was a British colony, see the work of one of Canada's leading experts on the subject, Dr. Andrew Heard, "The new Dominion of Canada was a colony; albeit self-governing in domestic matters, but still a colony...Canada was just one part of the whole British Empire".

2. In the second paragraph (which I think is a good addition), we state that "Before being part of British North America, the constituents of the Dominion of Canada were...", making an explicit acknowledgement of the difference between the "Dominion of Canada" and the other iterations of Canada that came before, ie explicitly maintaining the scope of the article to the Dominion of Canada post 1867.

3. And it wasn't "Canada Day", it was "Dominion Day" as the holiday was created to celebrate Confederation and the creation of the new Dominion, not "Canada's Birthday". It was renamed in the 1980s to "Canada Day" inline with the dropping of everything "Dominion" from official discourse by the Government of Canada as "Dominion" has colonial connotations (ie "a self-governing colony within the British Empire").

4. Finally, the term "Countries of Canada" was used in the 1500s. Country means "an area or region with regard to its physical features", or "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory", and as we know French Canadians (as a legally recognized nation) occupied a particular territory (colony of Canada) with its own (colonial) government. Country is a notoriously confusing term in political science, particularly as many misconstrue it with "state" and also associate "country" as meaning sovereign and independent, which is not the case. For a more modern example, the UK is made up of multiples countries (England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales). So, the Dominion of Canada was certainly a "new country" but Canada was also previously by definition a country, and Canada was both before and after Confederation a British colony. In addition, although a new country, the Dominion of Canada was not a new "state" ("a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.") as the state authority and government of Canada was legally and specifically stated to "continue" going forward. Needless to say, this level of depth of analysis is likely not required here, only to illustrate there is a certain level of legal complexity here which is only covered by certain experts such as Dr. David Smith, Dr. Andrew Heard, and Dr. Philip Lagasse, and is never delved into in history textbooks (beyond scope) but only in constitutional analysis.

5. The fact that we cannot discuss anything prior to 1867 is quite obviously bunk, as the Government of Canada's own page on this topic (also formatted in quite nearly the same way oddly enough) starts in 1841.

Thus, I see no major problem with the way the article is constructed presently if we maintain the scope within the "Dominion of Canada" as is currently done in the second paragraph in the lead. In this way everything is all quite verifiable, works with the content that follows, and does not necessitate the addition of Canada, 1841 as the Government of Canada page does (and the creation of new graphics as well which would be a pain). trackratte (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What about the Government of Canada page that does use 1867? --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What about it? The point isn't that we must start at 1841, but that it is false to say that we cannot start before 1867, as the Gov of Can itself clearly does. We can start whenever we want really, so long as it is inline with the (clearly defined) scope of the article. Thus my point that it is fine as it is so long as the scope is clearly defined (ie the "why" of the 1867 is made explicit and clear). As I say above, I believe this to be the easiest and simplest solution, as Moxy's (I assume it was Moxy) addition of the second paragraph does already. My only modification was in carrying this forward to the lead sentence, as this is where the scope of the article is defined ('this article is about the X which began in Y and ecompasses the Z', or something to that effect). As a result, the lead sentence makes it clear that this article is about the territorial evolution of the Dominion of Canada in the lede sentence, expanded/summarized in the read of the lead, and detailed in the list content. As a result, I do not see any further modifications as it pertains to this discussion required, as the main concerns of all involved editors have been incorporated, and the content is perfectly inline with verifiable sources. Thus, I see very little standing in the way of consensus at present. trackratte (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Except it's not, since it ceased being a dominion in the 20th century. --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What's your source? The written Constitution legally constitutes a Dominion, and this has never been superseded or repealed. While Canada is by definition a kingdom, this term has never been used either officially or legally, and where one would use such a term, the word Dominion has always been used in its stead. Thus, absent a source substantial enough to contradict Canada's written constitution, I see only an editor's opinion. trackratte (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It was my understanding - now I'm seeing it's incorrect - that since "Dominion" denoted a particular dependence, that at least as of 1982 they were not a dominion. --Golbez (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added an edit notice ...the same that is at our parent Canada article. Pls try and follow some basic behavioral expectations we have here....your not new. When you are reverted especially multiple times ....it is up to YOU to gain consensus for changing the meaning/usage of terms or scope of pages. Pls respect the long standing usage of terms and dates used. If you think the connunity of editors are wrong.....convince them....don't edit war all over on long stable parent articles. All that said the current wording is not clearer to me ....but not worth reverting.....except for the usage of Dominion in the lead sentence. ....as per the new edit notice. --Moxy (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not propose to change the meaning of any terms, the difference between the Dominion of Canada and the United Province of Canada are already clear. The scope of the word "Canada" apparently is in dispute as apparently "Canada" did not exist until 1867, which I am sure many Canadians from that time period would be shocked to find out that they were not, in fact, Canadian, despite having a "Government of Canada", a "Canadian Prime Minister", and an already defined sense of being "Canadian" for hundreds of years. That fact that "Canada" simply popped into existence one fair morning in July of 1867 is verifiably false, unless the meaning of the word is restricted to the country officially entitled the "Dominion of Canada", and legally constituted as One Dominion called Canada.

The fact that the legal name of "the Dominion" is "Canada" does not abrogate the difference between the Dominion and the Province ie One Province, under the Name of Canada (constitution Act 1840). The Act also constituted the "Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada". It also gave rise to the "Canada Gazette". Clearly then, the word "Canada" was evidently in use prior to 1867, as was the national affiliation of "being Canadian". So to say that the word "Canada" refers exclusively and only to the entity created in 1867 and nothing prior to that date is clearly and verifiably bunk.

And something I just learnt in reviewing the document, "and any other Part of Her Majesty's Dominions", which is to say that the term "Dominion" pre-dates Confederation, which I was until now completely unaware.

Either way, there is clearly a difference between the usage of "Canada" pre and post 1867, as the Canadian prime minister, parliament, etc, now referred to a slightly different entity which not only included Canada, and Canadians such as Sir John A., but also New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and with a newly established federal structure, and with an official name change to the "Dominion" of Canada, with the word "Dominion" being used in the same way we use the word "Federal" today. Which is all to say that Dominion of Canada refers to something very specific in scope, which is not altogether the same thing as the One Province under the name of Canada that preceded it, and that the word "Canada" and "Canadian" were 100% and verifiably in use prior to 1867. trackratte (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You're putting words into people's mouths. Canada, as a colony, existed before 1867, and no one is arguing otherwise; but not as a country. Canada as a country existed after 1982, but not as a colony. Between 1867 and 1982 we have varying levels of overlap between "colony" and "country". (This would all be simpler if "Canada" weren't the name of one of its predecessor colonies; if that had been named Quebec instead of Canada, would we still be having this argument? Because continuity of existence is more than just a name, yet so much of your argument appears to rely on the name being the same, despite my suggestion that it's more than just that: maybe it's not?) --Golbez (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Country: "nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory". Notoriously confusing term, however by definition Canada prior to 1867 was, strictly speaking, a country (Canadians (nation) with their own government (Government of Canada) occupying a particular territory (Canada)). Many people think of a country meaning "independent state", which is not the case. State: "state. "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government". State doesn't necessarily mean independent either, but Canada prior to 1867 was by definition a state as well. Nation "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory", of course this Canadian nation existed prior to 1867 as well.

As such, Canada in 1867 was a new country in a certain sense (a newly expanded "particular territory", a now federal government structure, and an enlarged "nation" of more people), a new state in a certain sense as well (a newly enlarged "political community"), however the same in another sense (the same territory, nation, and governing constitutional system) that constituted Canada prior to 1867 of course was still there afterwards, its people, its lands, its culture and history, and its leading government leaders, and even its legislative procedures.

2. As per the name, it was called Canada for a reason. For example, during the Confederation debates in the Legislature of Canada when discussing the potential for a name other than Canada, one MP stated "Now I would ask any honourable member of the House how he would feel if he woke up some fine morning and found himself, instead of a Canadian, a Tuponian or a Hochelegander?" Which as you can see, the point the member was getting across was the indignanance of "instead of being a Canadian", as of course a great many considered themselves, and were, Canadians, and this fact did not change in 1867 and in fact was the reason why this new Dominion was called Canada. Why not New Brunswick or Nova Scotia? Because the principal economic and political power were in Canada, thus the majority of the "fathers of Confederation" and the wider debates often quoted today came from the Canadian legislature (see John A. Macdonald. So the hypothetical 'if Canada had been called Tuponia' debate is a bit moot, as it wasn't, and it wasn't for a very real and specific reason.

3. As you can see, my argument is not simply based on the name, but on a contemporary account of the situation as it existed at the time. The name though, is far from irrelevant, as the name itself had a very real meaning and significance, especially to the Canadians leading the cause towards Confederation. In addition, no history of Canada would be complete without going into its history prior to 1867, which can be plainly seen from nearly every history of Canada published. trackratte (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"The territorial evolution of Canada began when, on 1 July 1867"

The current lede "The territorial evolution of Canada began when, on 1 July 1867" is not inline with sources.

For example, this Government of Canada source describes the "Territorial Evolution of Canada, 1667" to 1873

This Government of Canada source provides "a picture of Canada’s territorial evolution, from 1840 to 1999"

This government link merely shows that "Treaties of Canada" were made in 1850, which is to say that territorial evolution of Canada in the sense of treaty making pre-exists 1867, although given its related to aboriginal affairs exclusively is ancillary as the scope of this article is obviously larger or different altogether.

Clearly then, we have official, reliable, and verifiable sources which plainly state that "The territorial evolution of Canada began" prior to 1867, and thus we have official Canadian sources which directly contradict this lede statement.

1. The simple solution is simply to make the current and actual scope of this article explicit to the establishment of the Dominion of Canada. Simple in the sense that only one word, Dominion, is required in this case.

2. Alternatively the date is changed in line with sources, ie 1667 in the source above.

3. A third option is simply a more clearly formulated lead, ie something along the lines of "This article is about the territorial evolution of Canada since 1 July 1867." A following sentence should also note the antecedent with the two sources, however it can then be noted that the majority (perhaps, I haven't checked outside Government of Canada sources) of sources begin as of Confederation, etc, which encapsulates all the sources, is clear and explicit, and also directly addresses the reason why 1867 is used.

I personally suggest either 1 or 3, as 2 is not simple nor easy. trackratte (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would have no problem with saying "territorial evolution of Canada since 1 July 1867." As long as this odd POV about Dominion not the same as Canada is not pushed in the article. As for sources.....thousands are out there all with different starting points....I think its best to leave this article about the country....not some other entity ( the norm since it's inception). --Moxy (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So 3 then? Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere, "country" is a notoriously confusing word as people use it to mean all sorts of different things. Being as country is defined as "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory", Canada was by definition a country prior to 1867 as well, which is all to say I don't know what you mean by "its best to leave this article about the country", unless you mean "its best to leave this article about the Dominion of Canada". trackratte (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Robinson Treaties of 1850, according to our article on them, were between the crown and Ojibwa, so you cannot use that as an example of Canada having treaty-making powers. So no, in the sense of treaty making, according to the evidence given, did not pre-exist 1867.

I'm going to take this moment to share a bit of my distaste with how you argue - you have three times now defined "country" in an identical fashion, so you think either that we didn't see it the first time, that you need to repeat it to drill it in our heads, or simply to eat up space so you control the conversation. In any case, please respect those you're discussing with and don't hammer things please. --Golbez (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

But, let me pick apart that second source you give about 1667: From the start, it's clearly a colony, first of France, then of Great Britain. In 1849, it notes the formation of the Province of Canada (date is because it's consolidating several changes; change happened in 1841), but note that it's still colored British. So, they still considered it a colony. Which makes sense, because it was. But in 1867, note that it's no longer colored British. So apparently, according to the government of Canada, 1867 was the start of Canada's entry into international life. According to this image, this is where we should start the map of the evolution of the [at least marginally, at the time] independent dominion of Canada, which would become more independent in 1931, and fully independent in 1982. To start earlier would be to intrude upon it being a full, non-independent colony, and I feel that's beyond the scope of these articles. --Golbez (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If I understand your argument you believe that starting prior to 1867 is inappropriate because before that date Canada was a colony, and after this date Canada was an independent country. Okay. Except for Canada prior to 1867 was, by definition, a country, and Canada after 1867 was still a non-independent British colony. I won't repeat the sources as apparently you find definitions and references insulting when I add them to my responses for ease of reading so that readers don't have to go digging into my previous posts.

Are you advocating for 1, 2, 3, or none? trackratte (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And I'll add some sources I have not put up before, since editor opinion simply does not matter here (outside of purely editorial/style issues), and you apparently do not believe Dr. Heard when he says that Canada was still a British colony in 1867.

University of McGill: "After Confederation, and amid much controversy, a full-fledged Canadian military was created. Canada, however, remained a British colony"

Canada in the making portal: "With the passing of the British North America Act in 1867, Canada became a Dominion in the British Commonwealth and John A. Macdonald became Canada's first prime minister. This did not mean that it was a fully independent country, though. It remained a colony of Britain for many more years."

And for the ancilliary argument from Moxy that "Canada" only exists as of 1867: The Laws of Canada, 1841.

And for the Canadian government: House of Commons Procedure and Practice: "While the law enacting Canada’s Parliament came into force on July 1, 1867, it would be misleading to conclude that Canadian parliamentary institutions were created at Confederation; they were then neither new nor untried." trackratte (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool, we agree that Canada wasn't fully independent until long after 1867. It's almost as if that was never in question. It's almost as if I said that in the edit you're responding to. As for #1: Would this be a word in the title, or simply a word in the first sentence? --Golbez (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I am failing to see your point vis a vis "From the start, it's clearly a colony...[after 1867] independent dominion of Canada", however if we both agree I gather there is little point in discussing it further.

For proposed option #1, just a word in the first sentence is what that option proposes. If we were wanting to change the title, I believe it would be easiest to create a new section specific to that topic. What do you think? trackratte (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Word added. Dispute over. Intro simplified. --Golbez (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, good work, I like your simplification and clarity of scope. If anyone were interested and had the time, it could be beneficial to have a similar article pre-1867, as this territorial evolution is explained in a number of articles but as far as I am aware, never illustrated as clearly as it is here. trackratte (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed; the evolution of british north america, the evolution of the province of canada, etc etc. --Golbez (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute maps

Just a note that all the maps of disputed areas of Canada after 1873 still show Prince Edward Island as grey (i.e. not part of Canada), when in fact all the maps after 1873 (when it joined) should show it as yellow. Just a small error to note, and hopefully equally as small to fix. --Canuckguy (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead change

To bring this article inline with the rest of Wikipedia I propose a small change to the opening sentence. As most are aware of "Dominion of Canada" is a term that a has very specific meaning in Canada...as the act is clear that Dominion is the country's "title" and its "name" is Canada...... Dominion of Canada has never been the long form of the name. So what is best for our readers to understand this without pushing a point of view? .... let's keep the term Dominion but actually link it for more info for our readers and link Name of Canada for even more information. --Moxy (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A dominion under the name of Canada was ....

Wow, this is a featured list? That lede needs some serious expansion. Support as a starting point, but watch that dominion isn't overlinked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead did look nicer when it was listed. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup lead got all butchered up a few years ago.... this version was the most informative..--Moxy (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Would support reinstating. Would like to know why User:Golbez got rid of most of it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the answer to that is in the large discussion a couple sections above this one, from late 2017. I'm in favour of restoring the previous lede, and working from that as a starting point if the scope of the list needs to be clarified. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

To respond to concerns:

• "A dominion under the name of Canada"... I don't understand the push for this at all. As for "Dominion of Canada has never been the long form", then fine, we can just say "Canada was formed...". Or "The country of Canada...", or even "The Dominion of Canada" but with Dominion and Canada linked separately. But "A dominion by the name of Canada" is just such a strained wording that helps nothing. Fake edit: Hey, what about what I've tried in the intro now?
• As for the lead: Erm, good point. What happened? Looks like I "cleaned it up" after a previous dispute, but erm. Jeez, I dunno, I'll cop to this one, no clue what I was thinking. I've made an attempt at improving it, pulling some text from the earlier version and refining things a bit, trying not to repeat too much or go off into tangents. --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• PS, I know this sounds weak, but I know I can be a bit of an asshole when dealing with articles I've made, and I'm trying to calm myself. That's my only explanation for that 2017 intro pruning. So I apologize for past disputes and my tone in recent ones. --Golbez (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Good change....I can live with it.--Moxy (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, looks good. There are some bits that need some work but I agree with the handling of "dominion", as well as "post-colonial" in context. To follow up on the previous thread, anyone here interested in working on a Territorial evolution of British North America and/or Territorial evolution of New France companion articles to this one? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I would love to see one for New France....We have North America Prior to 1763 and Since 1763. All the info needed for new New France maps is at Former colonies and territories in Canada.--Moxy (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, actually. :) I have a very, VERY early work-in-progress going on in my sandbox, User:Golbez/sandbox/UK. And many years ago, I started work on a "Territorial evolution of North America" (because the ones we have aren't great) and I'd love to get back into that. I also think a "Territorial history of everything that eventually became Canada" article might be interesting, since we basically have that for Australia in its Territorial evolution article (of course, that works for pre-colonial times since there were no colonies that joined Australia after federation). But, I have some other projects I'd like to finish up first, like User:Golbez/sandbox/USSR. --Golbez (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Geographic coordinates in entries

@Golbez: thanks for your explanation in your revert of my revert on the area(/rectangle) around Winnipeg. I have no problem with doing it one way or the other, but we should be consistent throughout the list, and it does seem that you have more experience working in these lists. So I'm just pointing out that the Manitoba entry isn't the only one which was defined by geographic coordinates, I think it was just one of very few where the geographic coordinates were part of the territorial change - in a lot of cases these were preexisting British territories being added to Canada without the boundaries changing, or the boundary was defined as a line running between two geographic features. But for example the June 26, 1874 expansion of Ontario was to the 51st parallel, and the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan was defined by the 60th parallel, and it's not mentioned here but the Labrador boundary dispute was settled in part along the 52nd parallel. We should be consistent in the detail we use in the entries. What do you think? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the 1874 one too, but in that case it's more relevant because it involves a dispute. And the creation of the others, only involves mentioning two lines, whereas Manitoba is three. I know, I know, it sounds very minor, but I don't want to get into the situation of having to describe Nunavut's border, which is ... not friendly. (and in fact was the reason I wanted to rip all the coordinates out - I can't possibly describe it in a reader-friendly fashion, so why bother trying with any of them?) so I was wanting to think of some hard but arbitrary rules, like 'only mention specifics when it's 2 or fewer lines'. However! I've been trying out a happy medium on my sandbox, and I think I've come up with some things. So, all I can say is, Manitoba's border won't be secret for long. :) --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Eurocentrism

This is a cool and informative article, but it's missing a lot. It makes no mention of the Numbered Treaties, or any other land cession by indigenous peoples; nor of any comprehensive land claim agreement; nor of any territorial disputes with First Nations (e.g. the Haida Nation disputes that Haida Gwaii ever became part of the British Empire or Canada); yet tiny disputes and agreements with the white-majority United States and tenuous claims by Norway are included. Surely the treaties which brought most of Western Canada under the sovereignty of the Canadian Crown deserve a place in the article. I can try to start on this when I have time, but it will take a lot of work and a lot of new maps. SpockFan02 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

On the one hand, the map is designed entirely to be "Canada from the view of Canada". Hence, the maximal view of borders, with disputes handled separately. On the other hand, there's always room for the treaties and movements that made the country in a de facto sense, rather than just de jure. So what I'm saying is: Yes. Give me the info and I'll incorporate it into the maps. I'll look for what I have but I'm sure it'll be incomplete.

That said: It's not Eurocentric. It's Canadacentric. It's not "the history of white settlement across Canada", it's "this is what Canada said its lines were," period. If and when I do a similar map of China, it will follow the exact same rules, but couldn't possibly be considered Eurocentric. --Golbez (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I didn't expect anyone to see this so soon. I disagree with your characterization of treaties as de facto and not de jure, and in fact in many cases it is the other way around, because land was ceded by treaty after Canada or European Canadian settlers began encroaching on it. Meanwhile treaty rights are, de jure, entrenched in the Constitution. I don't at all mean to attack you or the article by the use of the word Eurocentrism, but by including agreements and disputes with European nations and the United States without a single reference to Indigenous Canadians in the article, I believe it warrants that description. As for the maps: It is obvious that you've put a ton of work into these over the years; they're awesome, and thank you. Do other people tend to edit them? Would that mess up the consistent style? Do you work in raster or vector?

Here are some sources for treaty and land claim maps, nowhere near comprehensive, but a start:

http://www.otc.ca/pages/treaty_map.html - Information and maps for the Numbered Treaties

http://www.otc.ca/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Canada%20Treaty%20Boundaries.pdf - Approximate treaty map (mind the date; additionally, the exact text of most of the Peace and Friendship treaties is not available, but they are commonly interpreted as having allowed European settlement within Mi'kma'ki without relinquishing sovereignty over any land)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Numbered-Treaties-Map.svg - Approximate Numbered Treaties map

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/inac-ainc/james_bay-e/jbnq_e.pdf - Text of the first comprehensive land claim agreement, has maps

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-BC/STAGING/texte-text/trynegc_1100100021020_eng.pdf - Self-governing areas within British Columbia created by comprehensive land claim agreements (does not reflect the current status of Westbank First Nation's agreement)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NWT_Settlement_Locator_Tlicho.svg - Tłı̨chǫ Government's jurisdiction; they have title to a smaller area, which can be seen in the last map

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indigenous-peoples-of-North-America,-Population-Density-and-Territories.png - Really awesome, well-researched map showing indigenous self-government areas; it has sources but the explanations are in German — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpockFan02 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

To better explain what I meant about de facto vs de jure: The main part of the map only cares about what the Canadian government says. Period. It doesn't care about reality on the ground. Therefore, it's purely de jure. On the other hand, I feel like treaties with First Nations, etc., represent a de facto change, as Ottawa drawing a line doesn't change any reality on the ground, but the actions of the treaties do.

No one's ever really edited the maps. They're raster, I have a somewhat arcane process for making them. As for me being sensitive about "Eurocentrism," it's only because of the internet widely accusing me of being racist any time the old GIF version of Territorial evolution of the United States goes viral. I didn't want to snap back too hard at that one, as I could tell what you were saying, it's just a personal sore spot. Thanks for the compliments on my [well, our, I might make the maps but the research etc is a team effort] work :) --Golbez (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

To help with that research, here is a list of treaties that I think should be included:

August 3, 1871 - Treaty 1

August 21, 1871 - Treaty 2

October 3, 1873 - Treaty 3

September 15-25, 1874 - Treaty 4

September 1875 - Treaty 5 (signed September 1875 to September 1876, adhesions 1908-1910)

1876 - Treaty 6 (signed 23 and 28 August and 9 September... Treaty 6 had many adhesions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_6#Timeline)

September 22, 1877 - Treaty 7

December 4, 1877 - Additional signing of Treaty 7 with more Blackfoot leaders

June 21, 1899 - Treaty 8

July 12, 1905 to August 9, 1906 - Treaty 9 signings (adhesions 1929-1930)

August 28, 1906 to August 22, 1907 - Treaty 10 signings

1908-1910 - Treaty 5 adhesions

June 27, 1921 to July 17, 1922 - Treaty 11 signings

October 31, 1923 - First Williams treaty ("unresolved title claims to the lands of the Muskokas and Upper Ottawa River, as well as any underlying claims to the lands surrendered by the 1850 Robinson-Huron Treaty" https://www.first-nations.info/upper-canada-land-surrenders-1763-1923.html)

November 21, 1923 - Second Williams treaty ("covered the lands implicated by some of the more problematic land cession agreements dating from the 1780s" https://www.first-nations.info/upper-canada-land-surrenders-1763-1923.html)

Map of Williams Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties: https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/

Upper Canada Land Surrenders and the Williams Treaties (1764-1862/1923) https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1360941656761/1544619778887

The Upper Canada Land Surrenders took place pre-Confederation so they are outside the current scope of this article, but those lands should not be shown as disputed because they were surrendered to the Crown. Same deal with other pre-Confederation treaties and cessions, such as:

Douglas Treaties: Fourteen(?) treaties regarding Vancouver Island, 1850–1854 (verbal agreements and signatures in April 1850, details of the first treaty decided in August 1850)

September 7, 1850 - Robinson Superior Treaty/Crown Treaty Number 60

September 9, 1850 - Robinson Huron Treaty/Crown Treaty Number 61

"The Saugeen Surrenders of 1854 and the Pennefather Treaty of 1859 altered the original treaties."

"The Wiikwemkoong First Nation did not sign either treaty, and their land is considered "unceded"."

1854 - Saugeen Treaty

1862 - "in 1862, another treaty surrendering the majority of Manitoulin Island" (https://www.first-nations.info/upper-canada-land-surrenders-1763-1923.html)

Sources for pre-Confederation treaties:

Robert J. Surtees, Indian Land Surrenders in Ontario 1763-1867 (Ottawa: 1984)

Upper Canada land surrenders treaty texts: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1370372152585/1581293792285

More information on Upper Canada Land Surrenders: https://www.first-nations.info/upper-canada-land-surrenders-1763-1923.html

The last "historic treaties" were concluded in 1923. In recent decades there have been specific land claim agreements (resolving issues with implementation of existing treaties) and comprehensive land claim agreements ("modern treaties," ceding land to Canada and creating indigenous self-government areas)

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/comprehensive-land-claims-modern-treaties "As of January 2015, the federal government has settled 26 comprehensive land claims and signed three self-government agreements since 1973," including:

1975 - James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (I linked the text of this further up)

1978 - Northeastern Québec Agreement

1984 - Inuvialuit Final Agreement, western Arctic

1992 - Gwich’in Agreement, northwestern portion of the Northwest Territories and 1,554 km² of land in the Yukon

1993 - Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Inuit of the eastern Arctic

"11 Yukon First Nation final agreements through 2008, based on the Council for Yukon Indians Umbrella Final Agreement (1993)

... Later that year, the Vuntut Gwitchin, the Nacho nyak Dun, the Champagne-and-Aisihik and the Teslin Tlingit Council each concluded final and self-government agreements. In 1997, final and self-government agreements were signed with the Little Salmon/Carmacks and Selkirk First Nations. The self-government agreements negotiated between 1995 and 2005 by northern First Nations granted wide jurisdiction, including province-like powers in regard to justice, law and order, education, health services and cultural practices"

1993 - Sahtu Dene and Métis Agreement, Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories

2000 - Nisga’a Final Agreement, Nass Valley, northern British Columbia

2003 - Tlicho Land Claims Agreement, North Slave region, Northwest Territories

2005 - Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, Labrador and Newfoundland

2008 - Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, Québec

2009 - Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, BC Lower Mainland

2010 - Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement, Québec

2011 - Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, Vancouver Island

2013 (effective date 2016) - Yale First Nation Final Agreement, British Columbia

2014 (effective date 2016) - Tla’amin Final Agreement, British Columbia

2014 - Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Self-Government Agreement, Manitoba

2005 non-treaty Self-Government Agreement which allows Westbank First Nation (interior BC) to pass laws which override provincial legislation on its lands https://www.wfn.ca/docs/self-government-agreement-english.pdf

Many indigenous nations have never ceded their land to Canada. I think these areas should be mapped as disputes.

Some info on Haida Gwaii: http://www.haidanation.ca/?page_id=34 https://www.scribd.com/document/373414330/2018bcsc277

Algonquin land claim: https://www.ontario.ca/page/algonquin-land-claim?_escaped_fragment_=/ https://files.ontario.ca/maa-algonquins-ontario-settlements-area-boundry.pdf

Wiikwemkoong First Nation (mentioned above): https://wiikwemkoong.ca/

The many First Nations in British Columbia besides the Haida who have not ceded their territories, including a bunch who have begun negotiating comprehensive land claim agreements, the areas proposed to be covered by which are mapped in a link I posted above last month

And others, I'm sure.

Basically the things I think need to be mapped are:

• Disputes with indigenous nations/unceded indigenous land
• Land cession treaties which transfer land to Canada
• Self-government areas, territorial units governed by indigenous nations with powers similar to the provinces

This information is still not comprehensive, but I hope it is helpful. I'll leave the cartography to you.

SpockFan02 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a nice map made by CIRNAC showing the land and water areas covered by land claims and self-government agreements as of 2019: https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ-AI/STAGING/texte-text/mprm_pdf_modrn-treaty_1383144351646_eng.pdf

SpockFan02 (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Keewatin and non existent events

The caption for October 2, 1895 describes "The District of Keewatin was expanded to the portion of the North-West Territories north of Ontario" with a source detaching to "The Statesman's Year-book" which itself contains no reference to any 1895 event.

Both the "The Statesman's Year-book" and the "Sessional Papers of the Dominion of Canada, Volume 46, Issue 24" provide zero evidence to support a 1895 date, with the first event being referred to by the latter source as "only being considered" with an additional confusing mention of December 18th 1897.

This seemingly fake event is baked into the source maps, suggesting the ones currently used in this article are inadequate and due for replacement.

The Statesman's Year-book: https://books.google.com/books?id=XvYb0J0DVB4C&pg=PA223

Sessional Papers of the Dominion of Canada, Volume 46, Issue 24: https://books.google.com/books?id=PLM5AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA13-PA37&lpg=RA13-PA37&dq=October+2,+1895+keewatin+extension&source=bl&ots=Z8fvYLK1dW&sig=ACfU3U3bBat200v19Mi-3N9P3lKcffCz2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjsre2CseGFAxWVlYkEHQdDA80Q6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=October%202%2C%201895%20keewatin%20extension&f=false Zed3811 (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Noted; I'm in the middle of redoing the US maps with much higher quality mapping, and after that I'll hit Canada too, and in the process I'll review the sourcing and correct/resource anything that's off. Gimme a few weeks and I'll get on this. --Golbez (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)