Talk:Newfoundland (island): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:56, 22 June 2006

It appears that someone has removed the tricolour flag and replaced it with the provincial flag of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is NOT the 'official' flag of Newfoundland, it is the flag of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As this article is about the island, and NOT the province, the tricolour is more appropriate. Also, this person altered the population and changed it from 485 066 to 485 000 in 2005. I don't doubt that this could be accurate, but as there was no reference given on this talk page, I have changed it back, this is the official population as given by the department of heritage here and for the last year available, 2001 http://www.heritage.nf.ca/facts.html Mícheál 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Newfie tricolor flag was created as a compromise between protestant loyalist-descended and irish descended Newfies. There's a bit more information about the pink/white/green flag at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ca-nf_pk.html user:Rmd1023

I see no reason, or argument for this article to be tagged with a 'may not be written in a formal tone' flag. Since the person who put it up didn't offer any reasons or suggestions on the talk page, and no one has made any mention of it since can I assume it's ok to remove?

I removed the flag, capital, and Confederation date of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This information is already available at Newfoundland and Labrador. The article Newfoundland deals with the island. - user:Montrealais

Actually it wasn't available there, but is now. - Hephaestos|§ 06:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The pronunciation 'pends on where you're from. NOO-fn-lan(d) is also acceptable. Kwantus 21:33, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

The pronunciation with the accent/stress on the final syllable seems strange to me. I'm sure some people pronounce it that way, but to say that "Canadians" do is a bit of a sweeping generalization. (I'd pronounce it NOO-fnd-land, [with secondary stress on the final syllable] and I've heard noo-FOUND-land before also. I don't think I've personally ever heard new-fnd-LAND, though maybe that's is the standard pronunciation in Newfoundland? Does anyone object to changing the sentence to "The word 'Newfoundland' is pronounced in various ways." or something similar? -JoshRaspberry 01:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, is there a wikipedia policy/guideline on how to represent pronunciation? (I.e. are we supposed to use the IPA, X-SAMPA, SAMPA, or just spell it out?) -JoshRaspberry 01:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Pronunciation -- IPA is preferred. — Catherine\^talk 02:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this back here from Island of Newfoundland; it was moved with no explanation, and the person who moved it failed to fix any of the numerous links. - Montréalais 23:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had thought the Newfoundland scenes from the Shipping News were filmed mostly in Trinity, which is in eastern Newfoundland, not northern Newfoundland? Filming was planned for Rocky Harbour in north-central Newfoundland, but it was moved for some reason. Parts of Nova Scotia's St. Margaret's Bay also subbed in for scenes of Newfoundland, and Halifax's south end played host to the scenes in upstate New York. Plasma east 07:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Newfoundland

Being from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I can tell you that Newfoundland is pronounced with the emphasis on the land part. Pronouce it simliar to the word "understand". I alway use the phrase "Newfoundland... understand?" when trying to teach people how to say it properly.

The same point may have been made above, but regardless: I think the emphasis being on either the "land" or the "new" is fine. The worst thing to do, is to pronounce it "new-FOUND-lind" (that's not a typo) which I have heard come out of the mouth of many a mainlander. Myself, I can't seem to remember whether I say "NOO-fnd-land" or "noo-fnd-LAND"; I think it might have to do with the context. I'm trying to recall how they say "Newfoundland and Labrador" on VOCM... Peruvianllama 04:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

João Vaz Corte-Real

I have serious doubts about this:

"Newfoundland" (originally, Terra Nova) was named by the Portuguese João Vaz Corte-Real in 1472, making it the oldest European name in North America.

I do not believe there are any commonly-accepted accounts of pre-Columbian European landfalls in North America other than those of the Vikings. The page for João Vaz Corte-Real indicates that it is far less certain that he ever visited Newfoundland than the Newfoundland page indicates.

Does anybody know where the name really came from? Even if Corte-Real used the same name, Terra Nova (literally 'New Land') is a pretty obvious name for a discovery. --Saforrest 01:17, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a hoax. I've never seen anything about this in any history books I've read.[User:Funnyhat|Funnyhat]] 06:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think you're missing something here, it is well-known amongst HIstorians that Corte-Real reached Newfoundland in 1472.

http://www.apol.net/dightonrock/CodFish/cod-corte_real_navigators.htm I think his name should be mentioned in this article, since the evidence is very strong!

--- Addition ---

As I recall, the notion that Cabot was the original discoveror is more folklore than anything else. I agree that Corte Real was there first, and if I'm not mistaken there were a few others as well. I'm likely wrong on this, but I think the Basques may have been around just prior to Cabot.

Euro Discovery Of NL

If i'm not mistaken, newfoundland was discovered by john cabot in 1497 not 1472. If my memory serves me correctly, we had our 500 year celebrations in 1997.

Indian / native

there are a few mentions of the term 'Indian' in the text. Shouldn't this be changed to 'native', 'native American', 'continental native' or something along those lines. The word 'Indian' is seen as a derogatory term if I'm not mistaken, and is in any case old-fashioned.

A nation?

Part of this section reads, "Newfoundland and Labrador is the most ethnically homogenous province in Canada." Really? What about northern Labrador, which is predominantly Inuit? And for that matter, are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians "homogenous"? I didn't remove this, but maybe it should be. 142.217.16.115 10:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most Definitely

Newfoundland, the island of Newfoundland, is actually one of the most ethnically homogenous places in the entire world. I read an article about researchers going to Iceland and Newfoundland to do research on some sort of degenerative disease because the gene pool is so pure in both places. I am not sure about Iceland, but most of the population of Newfoundland can trace their ancestry back to a relatively small number of original settlers. As for Labrador, because the population in that part of the province is so low, the province as a whole is still far more ethnically homogenous than any other in Canada even with Labrador factored in. Northern Labrador is indeed predominantly Inuit, although if you were to compare the percentage of all Native peoples in Labrador to the population of the province as a whole it would be very low and the province as a whole would still be far more ethnically homogenous than any other in Canada. According to elections Canada, 34 percent of Labrador's total population of 27 864 people are Native-this equals about 9473 people. This would mean that these people accounted for only 1.77 percent of the total population of the province (9473 is 1.77 percent of 533 800 people) Just to contrast-in Ontario 'South Asians and Chinese' people make up 8.6 percent of the population, Black people make up 3.6 percent; in Manitoba 15 percent of the province's population is 'North American Indian and Métis' , in British Columbia 22 percent of the population are a 'visible' minority, and so on. Mícheál 06:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Spear

Many sources like to say that Cape Spear is North America's easternmost point, but this ignores Greenland, which stretches much further east. If this article says that Cape Spear is North America's easternmost point, then it will flatly contradict this article, this article, this article, and this article. Indeed, one of those articles mentions that there is a dispute over Cape Spear's alleged status as North America's easternmost point. Can we please have it say "Canada's easternmost point"? That is not in dispute. It unquestionably is that. Kelisi 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not from Newfoundland, or even Canada, but you could say that it is the easternmost point in a north american country, since greenland is somewhat part of denmark, but that might be a bit too complex. SpokaneWilly 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of section "a nation?"

Exactly what is the point of this section? Aside from enabling a few divisive elements and a hodge-podge about the area being the salt of the earth I really see no point in its existence. At least give it a less vague title like “I’m not getting my fair share, give me stamps because I’m a unique little butterfly!”

For the sake of peace I won’t take the initiative to remove it. I would however like frequent contributors to really consider what that passage means and the agenda of those behind it.

EDIT: I do in fact live in St. John’s myself and I find this kind of discourse inane and asinine at worst. I see this section as a catharsis for a few very bitter individuals who simply can’t or won’t embrace a pan-Canuck worldview. There’s no place for regionalism in this article. Leave for the telegram op-ed.

I’m at least removing the final sentence “They have a tendency to be well received and are considered one of the nicest groups of people on earth.” It simply comes out of nowhere in terms of article coherence and is really a very subjective claim, vailidity aside.

I believe the point is...

I find your suggestion for a new title of this section offensive and problematic as a Newfoundlander. I'm not really sure what your problem with the section is, but I would suggest that the section is important as it highlights the fact that Newfoundland constitutes a nation, and that it has a unique history not shared by any other part of North America that is important to discuss and understand in any full examination of the subject, which is what I thought Wikipedia entries were for. Mícheál 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definetly a nation

I must agree and say that i am also slightly offended as an American who has fallen in love with Newfoundland. I spent 7 years of my life in St.John's and the culture and history have created a sense of nation that is very unique and has become a defining factor for many Newfoundlanders. It may not seem very significant to the eyes of some, but unless you have spent a large amount of time on the island, you probobly wont understand. In support of the section "a nation", The information is not false so why should it be removed? If you dont feel it is important to the entire entry, then obviously you havn't visited Newfoundland.

Changing section title "A Nation?"

Perhaps a fitting compromise should be the title "Identity within Canada".

A Nation

I think the title should be left as is-the fact that there is a question mark after the term IS a compromise in my opinion. In fact, there is little academic debate as to whether or not Newfoundland constitutes a nation. Whether when it was a dominion, self-governing or after joining confederation, Newfoundland has and still does constitute a nation. If one is to argue that Newfoundland does not constitute a nation, then there are very very few actual nations on the planet. I do understand that some people might think a title about identity within Canada might be appropriate, but I believe the title is more than enough compromise as is-just my opinion. :) Mícheál 15:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is obviously agenda driven

I therefore do not see any further reason for this section to exist then.

??

I don't understand...because almost all academics, historians, sociologists, etc. agree that Newfoundland constitutes a nation, and by the very definittion of the term nation Newfoundland constitutes one of the strongest examples of one in the western world...the section on Newfoundland being a nation is agenda driven and shouldn't exist? If anything this proves the section should stay there and the question mark should be removed from the title.

This is asinine

Well then exactly what do you mean by nation because you sir are being very vague. Canada is filled to the brim with regional idiosyncrasies as every other nation of our scope.

Exactly what constitutes nation to you, a lack of Black people? Well St. John’s has a decent proportion of Minorities. How would the Chinese community that has called St. John’s and a select few parts of Newfoundland home for well over a century have to say about your nation? Are their stories somehow irrelevant to our discourse or experience marginalized? What about the Lebanese of Grand-Falls Windsor or St. John’s Muslim or Sikh communities (there are enough to have a Mosque and temple respectively), whether or not there are 100 or 1000 of them doesn’t make their voices and contributions to the area any less real. M-Williams 04:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It sure is

Who said anything about a lack of black people being the reason Newfoundland constitutes a nation? I said that Newfoundland constitutes a nation because nearly all academics, historians, sociologists and ethnographers agree that by every accepted definition of the word, Newfoundland is one. The shared history, and uniquineness of the people and of the place are what make it a nation, not as you claim has been cited as the sole reason the 'lack' of minorities. The history, development, demographics and culture of Newfoundland are unique within North America, this includes the 'minorities' you have mentioned. Of course the Chinese, Portugese, African, etc. communities are a part of this. Acknowledging that they are does not weaken or strengthen the argument that Newfoundland is a nation, instead bringing it full circle and highlighting that no matter which way you choose to qualify the term nation, Newfoundland satisfies its definition.

I respectfully submit that it was premature for the section about Newfoundland's nationhood to be removed. If one reads any major academic work on the island, people, or culture, one will find that this is a very important and real aspect of it, thus making it appropriate and necessary for it to be included in a thorough and complete enyclopedic entry. The title of the section with the question mark as well as the body of the section acknowledges that there are those who disagree with this idea, and as such I respectfully request that the section be left intact as it fits with the aims and guidelines of Wikipedia. Mícheál 08:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leif Ericson

I added a statement informing the reader that Newfoundland was believed to be the last and only settlement he made, and for some reason the Vikings decided not to return. I did not intend this as vandalism. Does anyone have a problem with this statement being in there? 128.210.192.36

Oldest European name in North America! Really??

I removed the statement about Newfoundland being the oldest European geographical name in North America from the first paragraph. The islands of the Caribbean are geographically as much a part of North America as Newfoundland and several of these islands like Dominica were given European names still in use today by Columbus years before Cabot's expedition. At first I thought about changing the statement to oldest European name on mainland N.America but Newfoundland is an island so that doesn't work either. Either way I took it out. --Westee 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I think there needs to be a map of NewFoundLand in relation to Canada or the rest of the world. Borisblue 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations of Newfoundland & Ireland

Am from Newfoundland but at 2 moved to Iralnd. i Would love to see a united ireland and a new newfoundland nation to become one brotherhood nation what do you think?

--[[[User:SunderlandNation|Miller]] 15:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)]—

"A Nation?" POV Issues

There seems to be obvious pro-Independence bias in the section "A Nation?", which taken on its own seems to imply that Newfoundland is forced to be a part of Canada and would rather be independent, a sentiment not demonstrated notably in practice. Could someone please clean it up, or even remove it entirely? —Cuiviénen 03:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section "A nation" is really pro-independance, and that has no place on the newfoundland page, or any of wikipedia. But since i am not from Newfoundland or canada, i might be wrong, if that is a major issue in newfoundland, why not make it a non bias section on the debate over the issue?SpokaneWilly 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuivienen: WHERE is there an 'implication' in this section that Newfoundland is 'forced' to be a part of Canada?

Spokane Willy: In what ways is it 'pro-independence'? The section doesn't even mention independence at all and the only mention of separatism in any way is a clarification that the discussion about poll numbers "need not be read as indicating a separatist consciousness or even an emerging one." !?!?

It seems to me that there is a tendency for people to demand that the section be removed simply because it points out that Newfoundland has developed independently and differently from the rest of Canada for most of its history. I see no need at all to remove the section Mícheál 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]