Talk:Newfoundland (island)

Question of Fact and Vandalsim

I removed a link form Notable Newfoundlanders that read "* Peter, power ranger raper." It was by 24.222.126.90 within moments of a post that was clear vandalism. It was reverted again as "* Peter, power ranger." I am close to the three revert rule, and I'm not sure if this is a bad fact or not. As such, I'm noting it here and moving on. Other editors: Feel free to delete this comment and handle as you see fit. AubreyEllenShomo 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Flag Discussion

I see no problem with using the tricolour flag. Lots of other pages on wikipedia like it. Dbalderzak 15:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bmpower, User:HJKeats and other users. the flag can be shown as is (it states it is unofficial) and is similar to other unoffical flags used on wikipedia. Tolivero 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't matter that the tricolour was never a de jure flag, lots of pages on wikipedia use de facto flags, see Labrador pages and page on Northern Ireland. Bmpower 16:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

This is non-logical, on one sense you say the flag is not representational of the political reality of the place, but in fact is about the island itself... who made the flag? The rocks? -user:Greroja

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

While I understand why the Tricolour flag is on the Newfoundland page, I do not believe it should be displayed in the current method, it is misleading to the general public about what the official provincial flag is. Perhaps we could come to a mutual understanding of the flag's signifance to the island's history and instead place it lower in the article? -user:cwb27

user:cwb27 Please note, I moved your discussion down in this talk item to keep the discussion in chronologically order. As noted above in this discussion, this article is about the island of Newfoundland and not the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that in that context the Tricolour flag should remain where it is. HJKeats 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with user:cwb27, it should not be placed prominently on this page. The Tri-Colour is not the official flag of Newfoundland, nor has it ever been. User:HJKeats recommend's reading the Wikipedia article on the Tri-Colour as proof of it's importance, but this also states that it was never an official Newfoundland flag. That article also states that in 2005 there was only a 25% approval rating for the Tri-Colour, definitely indicating that it is not the 'de facto' flag of Newfoundland. This flag is no more official than the 'Republic of Newfoundland' merchandise now available. It's use on the Newfoundland Wikipedia page bring's all the other information displayed there into question. User:Schatman 13 October 2006

I also agree with User:Schatman and user:cwb27. There is little evidence that the Tri-Colour ever flew off the Avalon Peninsula. As a Newfoundlander from the west coast of the Island, and a history buff, I can attest that it is foreign to me. However, I do appreciate the history of the Tri-Colour. I understand that a clergyman took a strip of white cloth to tie together the green (Irish, Catholic) to the pink (English Protestant) as a symbol of union and peace. Our ability to get over the Protestant/Catholic conflict is a huge credit to our culture. 02 March 2007

25% of people would support replacing the current official flag with the TriColour --- that doesn't mean the other 75% reject the tricolour outright. Perhaps it shouldn't be prominently displayed, but it should stay on the page in some capacity. Also, it was used in some quasi-official capacity during the Dominion years --- never official, but displayed at official events, etc. My mom is from Gambo, and she agrees that the tricolour is an Avalon Peninsula thing, but if you look at it as population, not geography, that means a little more than half of the island's (not the Province's) population use it (and it is EVERYWHERE on the Avalon). Trollcollins 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Name

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)

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)

I am from Central Newfoundland, and personally I prefer it to be pronounced as NEW-FND-LAND. NOT NEW-FIND-LUND, NEW-FIN-LAND (cough* Larry King cough*) or NEW-FOUND-LAND. Most of us do prefer it my way, and dislike it's mispronunciation.

IPA for Newfoundland as per a Newfoundlander

When pronounced in isolation: ['njuw fən 'lænd] with primary stress on last syllable and secondary stress on first; the middle syllable is always reduced and usually the 'd' is dropped from the the midst of the consonant cluster [nd.l] being of the same point of articulation as both the 'n' and 'l'. The CBC and other national broadcasters now tend to follow this pronunciation hence the perception by Newfoundlanders that all Canadians use it. The only time Newfoundlanders pronounce 'found' as [fawnd] is in the last verse of the Ode to Newfoundland. And I have to admit that I cringe every time I hear, in order of increasing pain, [nuw] i.e. without the [j], any vowel other than the low, front [æ] in [lænd] and a non-reduced middle syllable so if you really wanna make me keel over, pronounce it [nuw 'fawnd lint] (Note: the 'i' in 'lint' is supposed to be the small-cap-i of IPA as it is supposed to be the lax, not the tense high front vowel but the one that I want shows up as uninterpretable even though I clicked on Wikipedia's character list for it). Iainsona 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not being from Newfoundland, I'm just going to use the IPA of Iainsona (above) and put into the main article. IPA should always be used, never some weird made-up pronunciation guide. If you want to add an additional alternate pronunciation, please feel free to tack it on, but make sure it's in IPA. Mahern 00:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Iainsona, where in Newfoundland are you from? While of course stressing found is wrong, I'm not sure this "njuw" thing is as common as you think. Are you, perhaps, "polling" only older people who would be much more likely to pronounce "new" in that way? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - M-W and reference.com both give the y-less pronunciation first:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Newfoundland

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/newfoundland

_└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your point. (FWIW I'm a linguistics student and I have done some reading in this area.) The "nyoo" versus "noo" issue isn't really specific to the word "Newfoundland." Some people pronounce words like "new" and "news" and "Newfoundland" with a "noo" sound, while others use a "nyoo" sound. It just depends on the individual's accent. Both pronunciations are equally valid, and both are used by plenty of Newfoundlanders. (It's not like moving the stress to a different syllable, which is not a matter of accent, but rather a mispronunciation.) WillNL 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Move

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)

the Shipping News

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)

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.

that is correct

Not so simple. João Vaz Corte-Real may have been in Newfoundland, although Cabot, as working for the english crown, is more famous. IIRC the documents, in 1474 João Vaz Corte-Real received a land in Azores because he had discovered "Terra Nova dos Bacalhaus", New Land of Codfish, in 1472. And his sons, Miguel and Gaspar Corte-Real, explored the same place (in 1500 and 1501) and claimed it to the portuguese crown. Coincidence? History is not only what is in history books, as it can be wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Câmara (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

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.

The word is not derogatory, and the last thing we need to do is put lipstick on a pig and say native american. First of all, why would hundreds of tribes want to be grouped together into a bland statement like native american? why not just take the time to say, the sioux tribe residing in the area which we now call Florida (ficticious of course). Of course Indian is non-representation of the people who reside there, but so is anything else, unless we specify the tribe itself. And to be fair, since cultures change, we should also mention the time period, because nothing is constent, and since America used to have slaves - we would hate for modern Americans to be confused with todays Americans... but I do rant so. - User:greroja

...Not going to enter into a debate about what the word *should* be in common usage, but it is still the case that the Federal government uses the term "Indian" in it's language. That's why the Census, for instance, uses "North American Indian" when classifying that ethnic origin. Again, not saying it should be that way, but since it is, I believe that it's the most NPOV option to use that language. AshleyMorton 14:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The province has nowhere near 533800 people any more.

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)

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)

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)

Reference on genetic homogeinity of population: http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/12/suppl_2/R167

I second

I second the preceding article. There are numerous ethnic groups within the borders of Canada who have been regarded on similar grounds as "nations". Consider the Quebecois and the Acadian people of the maritimes. I would remind readers of the article that "nationhood" is based on more than language differences, though such differences ensure that the "nationhood" of the Quebcois and the Acadian people is visible to all but the most obtuse while Newfoundlanders continue to be regarded as mere backward English speakers by a significant number of the mainland population. This flies in the face of the reality that the Newfoundland "accent" is actually an example of a dialect of English closely connected with old english. In other words, the accent is not "corrupted" English. It is a variety of English that has followed a course of development seperate and distinct from the Canadian mainland.

Frankly, I think the line in the article pointing out that Newfoundland's status as a nation within a political entity represents a good example of the nation/state dichotomy sums things up nicely. A distinct cultural identity with historical continuity doesn't necessarily imply an automatic drive to acheive political independence. In fact, I'd wager if you asked Newfoundlanders if they wanted to leave Canada you would get a resounding "No" but that doesn't change the reality that the very same people call themselves Newfoundlanders first when polled.

Further, the term asinine in this context is rather unfortunate. What is asinine here is the historical ignorance of the ROC in comprehending Newfoundland(to say nothing of it's comparable ignorance of its other constitutent parts). It is doubly asinine for anyone to repeat the errors of the past and declare that any discussion of what is extremely obvious to Newfoundlanders is "asinine". The result can only be an increase in the likelihood that the cultural concept of nationhood might merge with with political desire over time. This would be unfortunate for both Newfoundlanders and Canadians.

"Nation" vs. "ethnic group"

I think a lot of the opposition to the "Nation" section has arisen because "nation" is a politically charged term. I would suggest that "ethnic group" would be a much better word to use, because it doesn't carry the connotations of nationalism and political independence that "nation" does, while having essentially the same meaning.

In fact, the Wikipedia articles for "Nation" and "Ethnic group" define the two terms almost identically:

Nation: A nation is a group of humans who are assumed to share a common identity, and to share a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. They are usually assumed to have a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent.

Ethnic group: An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry ... Ethnic groups are also usually united by certain common cultural, behavioural, linguistic and ritualistic or religious traits.

These two definitions say the same thing. I would suggest that the main difference between the two terms is that "nation" is politically charged in a way that "ethnic group" is not. Both terms cover the same range of facts, but "nation" goes further, implying pride, nationalism, and even political independence. "Ethnic group", on the other hand, is more neutral, and simply identifies a group based on common characteristics.

And somehow, I think saying that "Newfoundlanders constitute a unique ethnic group" would be a lot less controversial than saying that "Newfoundland constitutes a nation". It just doesn't sound nearly as political, which, in my opinion, makes it much more appropriate for Wikipedia.

I'd like to know what others think about this.WillNL 13:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of using ethnic group instead of nation is a good one. Canadian alarmists constantly conflate Newfoundland national sentiment with separation anxiety, which is not the case. In the 2003 Royal Comission on Newfoundland's place in Canada, 72% of Newfoundlanders self-identified primarily as such, rather than primarily as Canadians, but only 12% (of the full population, not the 72% who responded "primarily Newfoundland") would support separation from Canada. Newfoundland group identity remains high, but it exists within a Canadian context. To throw an entire section on the trash heap seems agenda-driven to me --- just because Newfoundland is part of Canada, it does not mean we have to lose our identity, or hush it up. Newfoundland amounts to more than "regional idiosyncracies" --- that's very belittling. The section should be retitled and reinstated. Trollcollins 12:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem

"Although the province has an above average unemployment rate as compared to the rest of Canada, Newfoundlanders are well known to be hard working individuals."

How does unemployment rate have anything to do with how hard people work? Unemployment rate is the inability to find work, not laziness.

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)

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)

Not that I want to reference the game of Risk as the world authority on Geography but Greenland is in North America... does anyone want a link to Parker Bros? -User:Greroja

Another note, France,which is clearly a part of Europe has two islands within Canadian waters... can you name them? aka. Having a territory in another continent doesn't make it confusing - it happens all the time. Also, the Falkland Islands have never been included in any European maps lately. -User:Greroja

Okay guys, lets use some of our common sense. If Greenland WAS a part of North America, then it WOULD be considered the easternmost point. As most can tell they say it is Cape Spear therefore suggesting that Greenland IS NOT a part of North America. It is quite obvious.

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)

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)

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)]—

That you're smoking something good.

"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)

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)

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)

I do not believe that there need really be any conflict here. I think that what has happened is that the section in the text basically jumps directly into explaining the arguments/reasons why Newfoundland is/should be considered a nation, without any sort of introductory sentence. As a result, it appears to be NPOV, even though everything it's presenting is fact (or opinion or authoritative people). Some here have suggested that Newfoundland is unquestionably a nation, and say that that's *why* the section needs to be there. However, that doesn't make sense. Places that are truly unquestionably a nation (Japan, say, or the Netherlands) have no need of explaining why they're a nation. Clearly, if Newfoundland's status was not in some sort of doubt, there would be no need of a section at all. As a result, there needs to be some sort of introduction to the debate at the beginning of the section, because otherwise it seems really odd to jump straight into "why Newfoundland is a nation". I'm going to give it a shot, and I'd then like you all to mercilessly edit my work. 'Kay? AshleyMorton 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work Ashley-I just took a quick look through it and I think you've done a great job 69.157.174.99 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, folks - The changes I made have now been there for over a week, and they've been improved by others (thanks!), but I don't think the neutrality flag is still required. I'd like to remove it, but I'll give you another day or two to scream first, or forever hold your peace (yeah right - nobody ever holds their peace forever on Wikipedia!) Cheers - AshleyMorton 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Provincial VS National Identification???????

I'm interested in the source for this: "Newfoundlanders consistently rank the highest on polls ascertaining identification with province over country. The results are commonly 70-80% favouring provincial identification. This is markedly higher than similar polls in Quebec, though those polls are clearly affected by the sovereignty issue."

Last time I checked, and what I could find, indicates that Newfoundland has one of the highest levels of NATIONAL identification in the country.

First, I assume that by "NATIONAL", you mean "Canada", not a Newfoundland nationalism. Even then, I think that it's entirely possible that you're right without actually contradicting what's in the article. I believe that if you asked a bunch of Newfoundlanders whether they had pride in their country, or are happy to be part of Canada, or some such question, I suspect they would give more "yes" answers than most Canadians would. At the same time, if you asked them "Do you consider yourself a Newfoundlander first, or a Canadian first?", that same set of respondents would give you high percentages responding "Newfoundlander". This isn't actually a contradiction, it just shows how intensely important community loyalty is here in Newfoundland. However, your request for a source is definitely well taken. Jump right in - see if you can find one that confirms or denies what we currently have written! AshleyMorton 10:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (oh, and you should probably sign your posts.)

-- Paul from Kitchener, Ontario, Canada writes: It is only 57 years after Confederation with Canada. There are still many people in Newfoundland that were born before this union occurred. Politicial or economic union with another geographically separate entity, doesn't immediately change the populace. Newfoundland's relative remoteness ensures it's previous identity is well preserved, especially in the outports where the way of life is still slowly changing. My older sister's generation were the first Newfoundlanders to be considered born Canadian citizens. My parents are Newfoundlanders and identify with Newfoundland first before Canada. Many people I know from smaller communities tend to favour Newfoundland over Canadian identification. It is my experience that the younger generations of families whose roots and current lives have always revolved around St John's or the large urban centres near it tend to favour Canadian over Newfoundlander.

Those who move into Mainland Canada from Newfoundland and identify as Newfoundlanders will most likely be from smaller communities or isolated regions if their family was not from St. Johns. Isolation "up along" also favours Canadian over Newfoundlander. The city of Cambridge of Ontario near where I live is rife with Newfoundlanders from Bell Island in Conception Bay. Bell Island is near both St. John's and the large Conception Bay South, but it is still very pastoral and prosperity declined after the mine boom ended. Locals moved here in extended families (several siblings and their descendants together). The older generations, the same one as my sisters, claim Newfoundland over Canada and spend almost their entire social life with other Newfoundlanders. There's a Newfoundland store and a community centre.

Economic situation or occupation sector and education play a role as well, the more wealthy/educated/white collar, the more often "Canadian" seems to be claimed. My siblings who live on the Mainland are divided. We all came here separate from one another. The three who have higher education and relatively better jobs also didn't specifically seek out Newfoundland social contacts, and we claim Canadian. The sister who came with her extended married family and friends all tended to migrate together and created their own community group with other local families from the Island. Unemployment or factory/construction work is common, with many working together and the highest education level is possibly a technical college. They claim Newfoundland. -- Thanks for listening - Paul.

I know of two sources for this information, but have access to only one of them (a more reliable one, thank goodness) at the moment. In the 1970's, a national poll (I believe comissioend by Macleans magazine) asked people in every province if they identified as (the province) or as Canadians. Newfoundland topped the nation for identification as their province, rather than as Canadians. In 2003, the Royal Comission on Newfoundland's Place in Canada repeated the question, and found about 72% still primarily identify as Newfoundlanders, as opposed to Canadians. This time there's a detailed regional breakdown available, and I guess this is where the "70-80% must have come from --- the rural Avalon (i.e. outside the St. John's CMS) polled the highest at 82%. The provincial average was 72%, so the "70-80%" thing is misleading. Trollcollins 13:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

15th Largest Island?

Just noticed that this article lists Newfoundland as the world's 15th largest island, but the article it links to on a list of largest islands places it at number 16. Is this an oversight? Stefano Magliocco 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And this article gives the area of the island as 111,390 km2, but the "List of islands by area" article reports that Newfoundland's area is 108,860 km2. 07:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

These three sites put the area at approximatly 111,390 km2. [1] [2] [3]. The first one there is a government website, and the second is the Memorial University of Newfoundland, so I'm assuming they would be correct. Jeremiad 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Population of the island.

Hey folks. I just corrected the main population figure. Someone had changed it to 534,200, which is clearly wrong, so I thought I'd take a stab at it. Here's how I arrived at it (all figures are 2001, from the Census):

Population of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador: 512,930

Then subtract:

Population of Census Division No. 10 (Labrador): 27,864 Population of New World Island: 3,709 Population of N & S Twillingate Islands: 3,073 Population of Bell Island: 3,038 Population of Fogo Island: 3,018 Population of Random Island: 1,429 Population of Triton Island: 1,335 Population of Ramea: 754 Popluation of Pilley's Island: 391 Population of Greenspond: 383 Population of Change Islands: 360 Population of Port Anson / Miles Cove island: 348 Population of Gaultois Island: 321 Population of Long Island: 308 Population of Cottel Island: 251 Population of Little Bay Islands: 176

Equals 466,172. AshleyMorton 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how that math works. This calculation would be akin to Quebec's population without Montreal or Isle d'Orleans, because they are islands and not connected to the bulk of the landmass. I agree that these are individual islands slightly off the coast of the main island comprising Newfoundland, but the people on them don't claim to be separate somehow from the island, other than by water. They are not self-contained entities and the people consider themselves Newfoundlanders. This is the first time I've seen a population listing ignoring other landmasses that identify only with it. This article deals with Newfoundland in it's entirety, which includes those islands. 24.43.205.27 07:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Paul - Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

There is an article for Newfoundland and Labrador. So this article, as it says in it's opening, is about the island of Newfoundland, not the province. So it's not akin to Quebec without the islands of Montreal or Orleans - it's more parallel to an article on Vancouver Island that did not include the Gulf Islands - which I believe would be correct.AshleyMorton 10:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any examples where this population calculation is used for any other island groups where the name of the main island is also the name of the region? 24.43.205.27 05:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Paul - Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

Hmmm... I sort of see what you're saying, but not exactly - for example, the absolute first sentence of the article is "This is about the island in the North Atlantic Ocean.", to differentiate the article from the one concerned with the province. The most direct comparison I could see would be with Trinidad vs. Trinidad and Tobago, but the first of those articles does not have a population number in it. Then there's imperfect comparison Vancouver Island, where one would, I presume, include Gulf Islands' populations if one was thinking regionally. Yet the article doesn't. At the same time, it doesn't *exclude* all of them, either, so I can't figure out what's going on, there. Then there's the fact that Vancouver I. has different populations on "it's" page and on the List of Canadian islands by population (though that's probably just a typo). Many other comparisons I could find (Great Britain, say, or Maui vs. Maui County, Hawaii are not directly comparable, or didn't include population numbers. Here's the problem: We have three concepts:

• the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
• the "region" of Newfoundland (where we assume that there are two "regions" in the province)
• the island (in the formal sense) of Newfoundland

I think it would be silly to have articles on all three, so I'm just going to add the population numbers the way you suggest to the ones already there ("my way"), and hope that satisfies us all. 'Kay? AshleyMorton 00:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I really do appreciate it. 24.43.205.27 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Paul - Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

Removed information on Newfoundland dialects?

I don't know who completely removed the information and links about the dialects of English, French and Irish spoken in Newfoundland, but I've replaced them as I can't see any reason here why they should have been completely removed?

Time zone?

I've also changed/ reverted the person who deleted the dialect references' changes to the time zone part of the article since it was incorrect.

A notation in the info box may be sufficient to establish that the Island is in a different time-zone and refer to the NST article for any nuances’ that determine its uniqueness and give the why and how it was established. A piece on the provinces experiment with doubled daylight savings would also be very interesting. HJKeats 11:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation?

Could I please have a translation of the sentence immediately above? ['immediately above' refers to the unsigned "I've also changed/ reverted the person who deleted the dialect references' changes to the time zone part of the article since it was incorrect." which was made by Mícheál Iainsona 13:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)] I don't mean to be rude but something seems strange about its construction and I'm not sure if it's talking about one issue or two or two related issues. Iainsona 13:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make any sense. I meant to say that I also changed / reverted the entry on the time zone which was writtern by the same person who deleted the dialect references from the article. I did this because the changes made by that user to the time zone part of the article contained information which was incorrect. Mícheál 04:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's what confused me because I was pretty certain that I was the one who had changed the time zone paragraph of which you spoke and also equally certain that I hadn't touched anything to do with deleting dialect references; perhaps you are getting confused by seeing very similar IP addresses? Anyway, the time zone issue is a moot point for now as I agree with HJKeats' deletion of the paragraph and his reasons — though a reference to the Newfoundland_Standard_Time article might be in order. And please, if you might elaborate so that I may be edified, as opposed to a blanket "... information ... was incorrect", what was it that you found to be incorrect in my paragraph with regards to Newfoundland's time zone and its relation to the other time zones on the East Coast of North America and why? I invite you to continue this discussion at my talk page (User_talk:Iainsona) Iainsona 11:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Iainsona, I replied on your talk page. The main error was that Newfoundland is not one of the three 'Maritime Provinces' of Canada. This term is a Canadian geographic term which refers to the three provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. Calling Newfoundland a 'maritime province' because it's on the ocean is innapropriate since the term means something more than that in general Canadian useage and because there are other provinces (Quebec, British Columbia) which have maritime coastlines in Canada as well. Anyways, like I said there's an actual full reply on your talk page!

Newfoundland's names in other languages

It seems to me more natural to group languages together by language family: French {Terre-Neuve), Spanish, Portuguese and Galacian (all 3 as Terra Nova) fall into the Romance branch of the Celtoromance family. Latin (Terra Nova) is a sister language to Protoceltic, the parent of Scots Gaelic (Talamh an Èisg) and Irish (Talamh an Éisc) as well as Breton and Welsh which fall into the Brythonic branch of the Celtic family as opposed to the Goidelic branch (as Irish and Scots Gaelic do). The original name for Newfoundland in Portuguese, Bacalhau, meaning 'codfish', is reminiscent of the Irish name for the island. There is a fairly strong tradition that Baccalieu island off the eastern tip of the northwestern Avalon Peninsula is named for this old Portuguese name for the entire island.
Newfoundland is, indeed, the only place outside the British Isles with a unique (i.e. not translated) name in Irish. The Scots Gaelic name is an adaptation of the Irish name (at least according to my relatives from the Isle of Lewis. 'Nua Eabhrac' is just a translation of the English name 'New York' and that is true for every Irish place name that I have come across but I would DEFINITELY be interested in being proved wrong on this because languages and placenames are one of my hobbies. Also, Canada is called 'An Talamh Fuar' in Scots Gaelic i.e. 'The Cold Land'. I am unaware of how this would be interpreted by Irish ears but by Irish professor (and my Irish dictionary) gives Canada's name as a pronunciation transliteration : Ceanada --- the 'e' is inserted to preserve as closely as possible the pronunciation of most central Canadians : [kjεnədə] i.e. the 'y' [j] sound after the 'C' [k].
Basque being an isolate and Japanese belonging, allegedly, to the Altaic family (though many scholars still think of it as a language isolate as well) seem to fit naturally at the end of the list; I'm not 100% of the vowel in the dimoraic syllable 'hun' though; I'm almost certain that my Japanese professor spelled it as written currently in the English Newfoundland article but the Japanese article spells the name 'Nyuuhandorandoshima'. Iainsona 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of the Japanese and appropriateness of having katakana and kanji on an English Wikipedia site when most English-speaking people can't read it

I put a parenthetical comment after the Japanese katakana/kanji insertion giving how to write it in the romanized alphabet and it agrees with my romaji — perhaps it's my Japanese teacher or one of her other students? :) Or they might have just taken the romaji and transliterated back. Either way, as I said above, it doesn't agree with the Japanese language page on Newfoundland which is ニューファンドランド島 , written in romaji as Nyuuhandorandoshima.
I'd recommend erasing the katakana and kanji and having just the romaji there as before. Iainsona 01:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Regrouping of related topics to make this page easier to read

Sorry if this offends anyone but as I read down through this page, I didn't always know at the start, based on the title, who was responding to whom so I've reordered things. If this is taking too much authority to my part, please revert this article. Iainsona 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland Irish

I have changed the reference to Newfoundland Irish to the past tense. Newfoundland Irish has not been spoken since the early 20th century. [4] Irish classes are offered sporadically at Memorial University; however, the langauge taught is Standard Modern Irish, not Newfoundland Irish. [5] "Newfoundland Irish" is not a label for any variety of the Irish language that happens to be spoken in Newfoundland -- rather, it refers to a specific Irish dialect that developed among the community of native Irish speakers in Newfoundland and is now extinct. Students learning Standard Irish in a classroom aren't reviving Newfoundland Irish, just as students learning Japanese at MUN aren't creating a dialect called Newfoundland Japanese. --WillNL 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, yes, the 2001 census report shows that there are 10 people in Newfoundland whose mother tongue is a Gaelic language. This does not prove that Newfoundland Irish is still spoken. For one thing, Irish is not the only Gaelic language; furthermore, these 10 speakers are most likely Irish immigrants who speak "Irish Irish" rather than Newfoundland Irish (consider all the other languages in the list, which are clearly the result of immigration; there's no such dialect as "Newfoundland Polish" despite the fact that there are 75 Polish speakers in the census report). I think this explanation is by far the most likely, considering that the faculty in the Department of Linguistics at Memorial University are certain that Newfoundland Irish became extinct by the mid 20th century. The documented scholarly research that led to this conclusion carries far more weight than unwarranted assumptions based on an ambiguous number in a census table. WillNL 12:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reputation

I have removed the recent addition to the "Reputation" section. It was a rant about the decline of the Newfoundland cod stocks, and read more like an editorial than an encyclopedia article. Reasons for removal: (1) it was severely non-NPOV, (2) no sources were provided, (3) it contained original research, and (4) it was only tenuously related to the reputation of Newfoundlanders, the topic of the section. To illustrate these points, here are some quotes from the material I deleted:

• "More of a last ditch effort then an actual intelligent decision by government..."
• "The cod still has not recovered in 2006 and will likely never return to pre-93 levels"
• "perhaps even more amusing is the suggestion that seals were the real culprits (I think the seal have been there a bit longer then DFO)"
• "Both claims are factless and simply served to provide a conveinant excuse for policy makers to justify the moratorium and pass the buck."

I think it's pretty clear that this is not appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. --WillNL 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, good call. HJKeats 16:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning House

I think that this miscarriage of wikipedia has gone for long enough, this page gets the majority of the updates and the provincial page has been left to stagnate. Passivity and ignorance have stifled what should have happened a long time ago.

The fact that the provincial page does not come up front upon searches and is mired in disambiguation is very unsettling and suspicious, especially given some of the information and article decisions which have frequently been added to this page. The prominent use of the tricolor along with frivolities of cultural distinctiveness and reputations has often made this piece read more like an editorial than an article. It calls into question the agendas of the frequent contributors to this article, along with the validity of the article itself. No other provincial article has to deal with this kind of duality.

I think we have two options; either this page goes to Hades or is in some ways merged with the existing article. I really think enough’s enough, and that’s coming from a native, no fooling.

Can we seriously think about this for a second people. 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy born in Newfoundland???

Can someone verify this as I've heard nothing about this and I think it would be acceptable to remove his name from the list.

FrostyCake 21:43 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy along with brother Matt Hardy were born in Cameron, North Carolina, USA. For more info go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Hardy or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy_Boyz. (Socialismo01 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC))

Notable Newfoundlanders

IMHO the sub-section entitled Notable Newfoundlanders should not be included in this article. There is a list entitled List of people of Newfoundland and Labrador which would be more appropriate to select those individuals that stand out. This article may have a section on demographics and people in general, the list should be left to be just that... lists. --HJKeats 15:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC

EDIT: Esp since someone like Mikak, who was not from Newfoundland, made it onto the Newfoundland list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.165.136 (talk • contribs)

I'd argue that the section should be left where it is. The article is very specific about referring to the island of Newfoundland, as opposed to the modern political entity of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so I don't think the List of people of Newfoundland and Labrador would be appropriate.

I do think the list on this page needs updating - it doesn't list the premiers other than Smallwood and Williams, and I'm sure there are other omissions. Vulcan's Forge 16:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HJKeats, the list should be for Newfoundland and Labrador and not Newfoundland. A list of people from a particular island part of a province with no independent political status isn't really all that encyclopedic, I don't think. Now, if it was a list of people from the Dominion of Newfoundland, that would be a different issue (and would have to go on the Dominion of Newfoundland article), but even that list would include people from Labrador, as it was part of the Dominion of Newfoundland. It seems that some want to use this article as a sort of sounding box for the idea of Newfoundland independence. But, of course, if Newfoundland were ever to become independent, Labrador would undoubtedly go along with it. Lexicon (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, now that I think about it, Newfoundland should either be a disambiguation page, or should redirect to Newfoundland and Labrador with a link on that article to Newfoundland (island), since most people who look up Newfoundland undoubtedly are thinking about the province, whether they really know that it is officially Newfoundland and Labrador or not. Lexicon (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that Newfoundland should redirect to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Then if so require, distinguishing the history, culture and demographics of the island portion and Labrador, other articles should address those specific topics. It is rather confusion at times to determine which is the authority when reading both articles. We must remember that these articles are to inform those who have no knowledge of the province and its history. Also you will find some new articles will just reference Newfoundland when it would appear that reference to the province is what’s required.--HJKeats 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No argument with the redirect (which seems to have changed in the last week or so anyway); the general reference to Newfoundland is to the province, not the island. But I'd still argue that the list of Notable Newfoundlanders should stay where it is on the island page - or as a better alternative, split the List of people of Newfoundland and Labrador into two separate lists, one for Newfoundland and one for Labrador - and link the appropriate list from the appropriate page(s). The Newfoundland (island) and Labrador pages could link to the appropriate list, and the province page could link both, since it distinguishes between the mainland and island parts of the province.Vulcan's Forge 02:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Reputation Section

"Although the province has an above average unemployment rate as compared to the rest of Canada, Newfoundlanders are well known to be hard-working individuals."

Sounds like an insult to people on unemployment no matter what way you spin it and I recommend taking out the first part of the sentence up to the comma.Acritic 07:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-political entity

Today someone removed the NF and Lab. flag from the page, citing the page is not about the political entity of NF. By that reasoning, the tricolor flag and the A nation? section should be removed as well. Dlodge 22:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection for vandalism

This page seems to get a lot of revisions for vandalism, mostly from IP addresses. Any thoughts on applying semi-protection i.e. only registered users can edit the page. Dlodge 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First Newfoundland map

I have a good definition close-in of Newfoundland in the Cantino map (of 1502). As it is the first uncontroversial representation of it, do you think its inclusion would be good for the article?Câmara 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland redirect: Island vs Province

We've hit the three revert rule (or pretty close to it) on the redirect from Newfoundland to Newfoundland (island) vs Newfoundland and Labrador (province). Can we have some discussion and a consensus on what is correct, and then set the redirect and leave it alone please?

I think it's arguable both ways; as a person from the island, I would prefer the link be to the island, rather than the province, but that's my opinion. In general I think people looking up Newfoundland will be looking it up in the context of the province, not the geographical entity.

Anyone else have strong supportable arguments in either direction? Vulcan's Forge 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See also discussion page for Newfoundland and Labrador. (Sorry about that.)Vulcan's Forge 18:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the majority of those searching for "Newfoundland" want the province, and so that's what we should give them. It's not as though they will miss the article for the island, it is clearly there at the top of the article on the province. One could attempt to make the opposite argument, but then nobody is going to search for "Newfoundland and Labrador" and intend on finding the article on the island, but many are going to search for "Newfoundland" and intend on finding the province. it just makes good sense to have "Newfoundland" go to the province. Lexicon (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• I strongly support keeping the link to the island. The name of the province is not Newfoundland, it is Newfoundland and Labrador. The island page has a link to the entry on the province in italics at the very top of it, and this is consistent with similar naming issues on other wikipedia pages and ensures that people who are NOT looking for the article on Newfoundland, but the province of Newfoundland and Labrador can get there in one click. Mícheál 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And what ensures that those intending on finding "Newfoundland and Labrador" find it in one click? The problem is that while the island may be called "Newfoundland", the province really is very often called "Newfoundland" as well, and while Newfoundlanders know the difference, a great many, and probably the majority of non-Newfoundlanders do not. Like Vulcan's Forge, I believe that more people who search for "Newfoundland" intend on finding the article on the province than the island. And that's reason enough to have it redirect to the more common entity. Lexicon (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• the thing that ensures people find it with just having to make one click is having the link to the province article at the very top of the article on the island in italics. this seems to me the perfect solution to the problem here. i don't agree with you that the majority of non-newfoundlanders do not know the official name of just one of canada's ten provinces. i suppose it is just a matter of opinion, but i think that although people might say nfld. in shorthand and in conversation, people know that there is an island of newfoundland and a province of newfoundland and labrador. i think the solution is redirecting newfoundland to the thing actually called newfoundland today (the island), and having a bold link at the very top of the article allowing those who intended to find the entry on the province of newfoundland and labrador to get there by making one click. what's wrong with that?

Mícheál 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)