Talk:History of cities in Canada

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canada: History / Geography Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Untitled

This article is not neutral and is clearly portraying Quebec Separatism as the bogeyman of Montréal. Although it is arguable that this political debate had an impact, much much more care must be taken on this topic. I requested citation and removed some clearly offending comments. If no citations are provided, I will assume that these are unverified claims and remove them.Enteka2010 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such perspectives are common, but not exactly rooted in truth. This article is impressive in scope, but it reads like an essay quite often with geographical determinism being the thesis, even though that idea is contentious and criticized by Jane Jacobs in The Economy of Cities. It will need a lot of work. A.Roz (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic Determinism

I've cut this paragraph from the lead:

Geographic determinism is the idea that favourable geographic features are an essential determinant of human behaviour. Favourable factors could influence the success of a city; examples include a benign climate, proximity to transportation corridors, usable groundwater, rain, a stable and flat or gently undulating terrain for construction, a benevolent hinterland, and proximity to markets. However, a geographically attractive location alone is not enough for a city to flourish. Favourable human factors, including economics, technology, social conditions, and politics are also necessary for the establishment and growth of cities.^{[citation needed]}

No citation has been provided in over two years. Even if a citation was provided, this idea is one theoretical concept among many which requires a defence. It is a thesis and should not provide the sole theoretical underpinning in a general encyclopedic article on urban history as if it was indisputable fact, no matter how seemingly valid it may be as a theory. It can be discussed somewhere in the article, but should not underpin it. Anything written subsequently as if this idea was unquestionable fact will need to be rewritten to bring this article up to encyclopedic standards and to be able to remove the many tags at the top. A.Roz (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cities Section

Saint John was thought to be founded in 1604 not incorporated as a city in 1604. That didn't happen until 1785. St.John's Newfoundland was established in 1583 but incorporated as a city in 1888. There is a mixing up of dates here between when these places were founded and incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.140.37 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this must be corrected, because as it is written it is totally false. In no way was Saint John incorporated in 1604, nor was it even established in that year. In general, the article seems to be fairly random in its focus and contains easily provable falsehoods. HISTORBUFF (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]