Talk:Newfoundland (island)

Question of Fact and Vandalism

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)

I reverted the last edit removing the Tricolour flag; please stop doing this. The flag links to the Tricolour article and based on the discussion above, the flag has a place on the page and should be left there.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (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!

If it's so well known among historians then start by providing sources on the Corte-Real article. As it stands it contradicts you. (Your link is a 404.)

--- 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.

Provide sources

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)

There is a discussion of “Dorset culture” settlements, but the map in the “Dorset Culture” article, it does not show the Dorset culture extending as far southeast as Newfoundland. This inconsistency should be addressed by someone knowledgeable about the issue. [[User:tcs_az] 20:12, 12 Mar 2023 (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)

The island of Newfoundland has an area of 108,860 square kilometers, the higher figure of 111,390 km2 includes associated smaller islands such as Random Island, Merasheen Island, Fogo Island and so on. See the article on Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador Silverchemist 02:03, 28 August 2007 (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

Hey folks,

I was tearing my hair out trying to figure out how the population figure of 478,139 was achieved using the 2016 census data, so I decided to recalculate it myself, using the same sort of methodology that AshleyMorton did in 2006. The impetus for this was that 478,139 is almost exactly 4 times Canada's current electoral quotient for making riding boundaries (111,166), which seemed suspect to me.

Using the 2016 census data I took the population of Newfoundland and Labrador (519,716) and subtracted the populations of the following census divisions and subdivisions, all of which lie within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and entirely outside the island of Newfoundland:

Population of Division No. 10: 24,639 Population of Division No. 11: 2,558 Population of Ramea: 447 Population of Little Bay Islands: 71 Population of Miles Cove: 104 Population of Port Anson: 130 Population of Pilley's Island: 294 Population of Brighton: 188 Population of Triton: 983 Population of Lushes-Bright Beaumont-Beaumont North: 168 Population of Summerford: 906 Population of Cottlesville: 271 Population of Crow Head: 177 Population of Twillingate: 2196 Population of Change Islands: 208 Population of Fogo Island: 2,244 Population of Wabana: 2,146 Population of Division No. 1, Subdivision R: 322 Population of Division No. 8, Subdivision D: 10 Population of Division No. 8, Subdivision H: 1,900 Population of Division No. 8, Subdivision I: 216

The total of all of these is 40,178 which when subtracted from 519,716 comes to my updated figure of 479,538.

70.51.82.15 09:50, 06 November 2018 (UTC) Kristian - Toronto, 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)

Huh? "the pronunciation of most central Canadians : [kjεnədə] i.e. the 'y' [j] sound after the 'C' [k]." Well, I'm not a central Canadian, being from BC, but certainly enough of them to know that's not true. Where did you get that idea from? To me, adding the 'y' sound after the 'k' sound sounds utterly American, like saying Frazhier River instead of Fraser River.Skookum1 (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2014 (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)

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)

• copy of list under discussion removed, as the list has been reinstated in the article. The following items moved from an extraneous "Notable Newfoundlanders" discussion, below.Vulcan's Forge 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This was deleted from the main page of an article and I felt its information should be saved and not disappear WayneRay 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

This type of information can be better presented within the article List of people of Newfoundland and Labrador, why keep multiple list of the same people? Just a thought.... --HJKeats 17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this should have been summarily removed from the article without further discussion (see above). I'm considering reverting this if I can figure out how to do it correctly.Vulcan's Forge 21:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand you people. There is already a article here why do you want to add it again? in the main article. --SkyWalker 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The List of people of Newfoundland and Labrador is just that; a list of people of Newfoundland and Labrador, which are two separate geographical entities that happen to share the political entity of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This article refers specifically to the island of Newfoundland, so in my opinion it would not be correct to have it refer to a list of people from both areas. The list above has grown extensively - and is missing a fairly large number of people as well - so I recommend creating a separate List of People of Newfoundland page and a separate List of People of Labrador page. The Notable Newfoundlanders section of this article can refer to the List of People of Newfoundland; the Labrador article can refer to the List of People of Labrador; and the Newfoundland and Labrador or the List of people of Newfoundland and Labrador articles can reference both. In the meantime, I have reverted the edit removing the Notable Newfoundlanders section. There were no subsequent valid edits after that, so the page is unchanged. Anyone interested, please contribute to the discussion here before removing the list again.Vulcan's Forge 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I don't think a list of "notable people" from an entire province (or even from a particular island which makes up almost the whole of the population of that province) is even encyclopedic. You certainly don't see a list of "Notable Massachusettsians" (or whatever they're called) on Massachusetts or "Notable Ontarians" on Ontario. Lexicon (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

True, there's no List of People of Ontario; there are 2 or 3 lists of people from various cities in Ontario. The province of Quebec has several lists of people by region (most of which are pages pending creation). There is a List of people from New Brunswick. (By the by, searching for a List of People from Massachussetts gives you List of Acadians as a first result.) So I think there's a reasonable precedent for it. I think it could be considered encyclopedic in that it provides a cross-index to biographies, historical personalities, current events, and so on. Case in point - I didn't know a Newfoundlander had invented the gas mask until I saw the link to Cluny MacPherson here and followed it.Vulcan's Forge 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those who choose to remove the notables list, the fact of the matter is that many of these subjects are far from even being notable people and it clutters the page far beyond the needs of the page and it's information. The notables list should definetly be redirected or revised:::

I'm in the process of removing the content of this section and replacing it with Category:People from Newfoundland. This category already existed but redirected to Category:People from Newfoundland and Labrador - even though there is a separate Category:People from Labrador which did not redirect. I have made the new category a subcategory of the larger group for the province. I hope to clean out the entries from this section over the next few days. I don't think I have the "main article" redirect right for the category page; can some see if they can fix it? Also - there should be some kind of warning template telling people not to add new "notables" to this section, since to add them to the category you edit the article in question.Vulcan's Forge 01:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this section on notable Newfoundlanders as I would assume that if anyone was really notable they would have already been mentioned in the text. As it is , while leaving out many really notable people in the past, all it does is mystify people who are not au fait with modern Newfoundland and its 'celebrities'.

I have completely removed the content of this section and confirmed that all the existent articles in it had links to at least one of the Newfoundland-related people categories, or have been moved to the List of people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I intend to do the same for the Newfoundland and Labrador#Notable Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Bearcat raised a point on my talk page about duplicate category references on people articles (and has since reverted at least some of the edits I did). I think the category hierarchy could stand some reorganization and there are some categories which don't fit into the hierarchy well (Category:Pre-Confederation Newfoundland and Labrador people for example). Does anyone else have comments or ideas on how to proceed with this? (I'm aware this may not be the best place for this discussion but I'm not sure where else it should go.)Vulcan's Forge 19:46, 8 July 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)

Katydidn't: I read this whole page and feel very much like an outsider, but I found what I felt was inappropriate language ("treehugging, asslickers") which I deleted. Might have left 'treehugging' as that may have been meant as a pejorative, but has positive connotations to me.

I am way outside of this general debate, as I am a non-Newfie, if that is the word, I just was looking up the Vikings and wanted to come to see the area next summer, but I dislike insults being inserted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katydidn't (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 March 2008 (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)

Let's not forget the major readers of Wikipedia out there who don't understand the political and geographical references of Newfoundland as a province and Newfoundland as a place with history as a dominion. We would want them to get to the article that best subscribes to their search. It is Newfoundland and Labrador now and where it was once considered Newfoundland, the same holds true today, it most commonly refers to the province including Labrador. Therefore I believe that all references to Newfoundland in a geo-political context should be redirected to the provincial name. --HJKeats 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Newfoundland and Labrador

right, and this is exactly my point. you are acting as if when people say 'newfoundland' they are automatically referring to the province, and my point is that this is absolutely not the case. in fact, when most people say they are going to newfoundland, they mean the island, and when people from newfoundland say they are from newfoundland they mean they are from the island, and when people say they want to learn more about newfoundland, they usually mean the island and it's culture, history, etc.-not the political entity of the province of newfoundland and labrador. this is exactly why typing in newfoundland should, as it has for quite some time, take you to the article on the island, not the province which has not called itself newfoundland since 1964! having a link atop the island page pointing to the province clearly solves the problems you are identifying with having newfoundland redirect to the island page instead of the province page and that's why it should be left the way it was.

And I am saying that you are wrong in your assumptions. Newfoundlanders may mean that, but the majority of people do not. If I asked someone "Where are you from?" and they said "Newfoundland", I would totally not be surprised if in response to my follow up question of "Which part?" They said "Goose Bay, Labrador." Now, I understand that a Labradorian would probably not say they're from "Newfoundland", but a non-Newfoundlander such as myself would absolutely, I can assure you, understand someone saying they're from "Newfoundland" as meaning the province. Lexicon (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are aware that most Labradorians would never refer to themselves as being 'from Newfoundland", but you think the article on Newfoundland should redirect to the article on the province of Newfoundland and Labrador because a non-Newfoundlander would assume someone saying that they were from Newfoundland meant that they might be either from the island of Newfoundland or from Labrador? That is nonsense. Please see my reply on the talk Newfoundland page as you indicated the discussion should continue there below. Mícheál 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But I'm married to a Newfie, I've been to Newfoundland several times, and I'm involved in WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador (actually, I started it). I'm not your typical non-Newfie. And I still, even though I understand that Labradorians wouldn't generally say they're from Newfoundland, wouldn't be surprised if one did—it's ingrained in me that "Newfoundland" is a province. But still, your interpretation of my argument is incorrect—it is not that the majority of people will understand someone saying that they're from "Newfoundland" could be from Newfoundland or Labrador (although that is correct as well), the argument is that most people, when they hear "I'm from Newfoundland" understand it as "I'm from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador" (or the province of Newfoundland, if they don't know its correct name). Honestly, even Canadians are pretty stupid when it comes to our provinces—my wife and her parents have recounted stories of people asking all sorts of ridiculous questions such as where Newfoundland is, "do they use Canadian money" and stuff. And that's Canadians. Think about everyone else in the world who uses Wikipedia. And that's really the basis for this—what the majority of people think when they hear "Newfoundland". Lexicon (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, first off-I don't think you're a 'typical non-Newfie'. I'm honestly and wholeheartedly sorry if anything that I said seemed to indicated that I did. I know that you have done a great deal of work on wikipedia in relation to Nfld. and Lab., the flag(s) of Newfoundland, and I am appreciative and glad. Honsetly. My point about your argument that people who hear "I'm from Newfoundland" understand it to mean "I am from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador" is as follows: it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for a great number of people who say "I'm from Newfoundland" to mean that they're from the province of N.L. - I am not that old (I'm in my 20s), and my parents and grandparents, were born on the island of Newfoundland, but not born Canadian and not born in the 'province of N.L.'. So if you were talking to them, and they said "I was born in Newfoundland", and then you found out that they were born in say, Harbour Grace, you would walk away thinking, they meant that they were born in the province of N.L. My point is that even if you understand people to mean that, they may, and in many cases CAN not. Your point about Canadians being pretty stupid when it comes to provinces and people from Newfoundland being asked ridiculous questions is well taken, and valid. But it's not evidence that people think 'province of N.L.' when they hear "Newfoundland"-it's just evidence that people don't know anything about Nfld. or the world around them. The thing I don't understand, and I'm not being facetious or anything here, is what exactly your problem is with keeping it the way it was, where if you type in Newfoundland and Labrador or Newfoundland & Labrador or even just one of the former postal abbreviations for the province like Nfld. you get taken to the page on the province, and if you type in Newfoundland it takes you to the article on Newfoundland, the island where there is a big huge italicised link at the top saying that if you intended to go to the article on the province, click to go there. This is completely consistent with the rest of wikipedia. When you type in Ireland, even though most people understand I'm from Ireland to mean I am from the Repbublic of Ireland, it takes you to the page on Ireland the island. If you type in Trinidad, even though when most people say I'm from Trinidad you would probably take that to mean I'm from the country of Trinidad and Tobago, it takes you to the page on the island of Trinidad. Why should Newfoundland be any different? If anything, Newfoundland is more of a case where it should point to the page on the island, being that the province has only been around for 50-some years and the island has been inhabited for a lot longer than that! Mícheál 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To wade in on this conversation and maybe provide a solution to the discussion. We are all proud Newfoundlanders and those from Labrador are proud Labradoreans as well. Notwithstanding, we are all from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and hence all references should go to the province, and yes I'm saying that maybe, just maybe, Labrador should get redirected to the provincial article also. Let's not get hung-up on what is a Newfoundlander and whether-or-not it should have its own article that describes it as a one time entity, we can create articles to address that. If you look at the Newfoundland (island) article and the Newfoundland and Labrador article, you will see that they cover similar topics and for anyone who is not familiar with the province or its history then they may be missing information that is not covered in one but the other. Wikipedia has plenty of room for articles that can cover all aspects of how the province was formed, politically, physically and emotionally. I would say lets do a better job on the provincial article with sub-sections that address all aspects of its history and where further clarification is warranted then create the article to address that. Let's talk about what's best for the readers and leave the emotional side to article creation.--HJKeats 15:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Micheal: Before it was the province, it was the Dominion, and before it was the Dominion, it was the Colony. Both of those previous entities included Labrador as well. Your grandparents were born on the island, yes, but they were also born in a political entity which is now the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If Wikipedia had been around eighty years ago, "Newfoundland" would assuredly have redirected to "Dominion of Newfoundland". Lexicon (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• HJ Keats: In many respects, I agree with you-I think that if the Newfoundland page redirects to the province of N.L. page, then Labrador has to redirect there too. I don't agree that this should be the case, but I believe that the fact that one would be consistent with the other shows that neither term should automatically redirect to the page on the province. Keeping it the way it was with a big italicised invitation to make one click to get to the page on the province is appropriate, sufficicent and consistent. Mícheál 12:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Lexicon: The political entity of the dominion of Newfoundland did not 'become' the province of N.L. The Dominion and the province are two different political entities. When the province came into existence, the Dominion stopped existing. This part of the argument has really turned into a battle over semantics and is really just based on one's own interpretation of words-I respect, but disagree with yours and I assume you feel the same way about mine-so it's a moot point I guess. The main point I have to make is that keeping 'Newfoundland' pointing to the page on the island is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Again, look at other entities in the world which are islands but also political entities which have land on other landmasses. Trinidad doesn't redirect to Trinidad and Tobago, even though every person who is from Trinidad is also from Trinidad and Tobago, and everyone calls the country 'Trinidad' in casual usage and people from the political entitity AND island are called 'Trinidadian'. Still, Trinidad takes you to the page on the island of Trinidad with a big link at the top to take you to the country article if that's where you want to go. The same with 'Great Britain'- evey single person from Great Britain is also from the United Kingdom, and everyone calls people and things from the U.K. 'British', and plenty people even think the country is called Britain, but when you type in Great Britain it takes you to the page on the island with a big link on the top to take you to the article on the political entity. Why should Newfoundland be any different? A: It shouldn't! Mícheál 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone just tried to add Labrador City/Wabush to the list of major settlements in Newfoundland. Clearly they were looking for Newfoundland and Labrador and missed the warning information at the top, and amazingly even the satellite image of the island and the tricolour flag! Lexicon (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far the best argument for setting the redirect to here, is the commonality with Trinidad and Ireland, as Mícheál pointed out. However, the only other example I can think of is Hawaii (island) vs Hawaii (state) - and "Hawaii" redirects to state, not island.Another alternative would be to simply have "Newfoundland" redirect to the disambiguation page.Vulcan's Forge 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Newfoundland should redirect to the province page, not a DAB page. The most generic/frequent use of the term is in reference to the political entity. In any case, that article makes clear that the province includes the additional territory of Labrador. ==Alcuin 02:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Old map

here's an old map for people to use. J. D. Redding 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Media Commons is the photo repository not Wikipedia so I have uploaded this map in Commons in .jpg format Image:NorthernNewfoundland.jpg it can be found on the Gallery article page List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador on Wiki Commons WayneRay 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

The

The word The is floating around outside the top-right corner of the table of contents. I'm not sure how to fix that, because evidently someone wants the TOC where it is now, not in the default spot. --Piroteknix 15:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna

Not everything needs to be about the history or politics of the island. How about a section on flora and fauna?

Flora and Fauna are covered in the "Ecosphere" section of the article Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador Silverchemist 01:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Added a section for this linking the appropriate article. I'm not sure I did the subsection link correctly though.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

2000+ links to this disambiguation page!

C'mon folks! This is ridiculous. Would some of you who understand the difference between the items on the disambiguation page please go though the list of ambiguous links (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Newfoundland) and fix them to link directly to the correct article. Many, many thanks! Ewlyahoocom 04:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Conceptions of Nationhood

I removed this section entirely; it was recently added but more or less duplicates word for word much of the text discussed in the Nation section above, where was thoroughly debated almost two years ago, and the associated article components removed as a result. The section is completely unsourced, and whether or not one agrees or disagrees with it, is most likely not WP:NPOV. I have reproduced the text of the section below for any further discussion.

BEGIN QUOTE

==Conceptions of Nationhood== It is undisputed that Newfoundland was once an independent Nation. Yet, there are also hallmarks of "nationhood" readily visible today despite membership in Canada since 1949. Newfoundland and Labrador is the most ethnically homogenous province in Canada. It has many totally unique cultural practices that are the product of centuries of relatively independent development. It has its famous dialect, often jokingly referred to as being difficult enough to understand at times that it may as well be its own language. Newfoundland also demonstrates a separate and distinct democratic practice emphasizing the individual member over the party, has had a unique experience with institutionalized religion in the Canadian context and appears to employ cultural mores in day-to-day interaction markedly different from the rest of Canada provided one is paying close attention. These mores emphasize casual familiarity rather than formal respect irrespective of the size of the local population. They are apparent in St. John's, the second largest urban centre in Atlantic Canada for instance. Discussion of them is an immense topic in itself. Finally, Newfoundlanders consistently rank the highest on polls ascertaining identification with province over country. The results are generally in the seventies to eighties favouring provincial identification. This is markedly higher than similar polls in Quebec, though those polls are clearly affected by the sovereignty issue. The Newfoundland polls need not be read as indicating a separatist consciousness or even an emerging one. Rather, they simply indicate that many Newfoundlanders tend to naturally see themselves as Newfoundlanders who are Canadians and not vice verca. The identities are not irreconcilable, but there is the danger they could become so, should political or economic developments in the future assume a certain shape. It is instructive to consider the use of "nationalistic" appeals by leaders in provincial politics since Confederation.

END QUOTE

Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Population

"505,409"?! It doesn't seem correct to me because it's the population of Newfoundland and Labrador ([6]). Please don't confuse the actual population figure for the island of Newfoundland with the population figure of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The island only makes up most of the actual territory of NFL (Labrador makes up the rest). I fixed the data to show the population of the island only, not the province. I had to go to the 2001 figure because I can't find the recent 2006 one. Pieuvre (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Found a way to find the population for the island only. I simply added up the census divisions. Pieuvre (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Scroll back up this page to the discussion "Population of the Island", and you'll see that the population number originally provided was not sum of the island's census divisions. The census includes many outlying islands that are considered not to be the main island of Newfoundland. I still find it confusing. --WPaulB (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Temporarily reworked

"This landing is considered by historians as the first arrival of Europeans to North America since Eriksson's settlement approximately 500 years earlier (Christopher Columbus never traveled to continental North America until 1502) "

1)historians ? who ? 2)the first arrival of Europeans to North America. Which model?

In addition there is a problem on North America continent: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_america

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsrivers (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 May 2011

Removed 7 continents graphic irrelevant here. Vsmith (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Terra Nova" is old Italian not Latin

I have no sustaining references but to me "Terra Nova" would most probably be of italian origin considering that in dated writings such as "I Promessi Sposi" and the "Divina Commedia", but also in all the 1200-1800 minor texts that I was presented to at high school, "new" was written as "novo/nova", while the contemporary words for "new land" are "terra nuova". Medende (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• what has Italian to do with the discovery age?! not much. You need to go back to school or getting better in suggesting conclusions, saying it derives from Italian is an outstanding even outlandish conclusion. Terra Nova maybe a Portuguese or Latin name. In Portuguese Terra Nova is written like that and means New Land or Newfoundland and Newfoundland and it probably derives from Portuguese, and not just the name serves as proof. --93.102.147.94 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous, you should get more education - but that hasn't been mine task. Apart from this, mine was a valuable hypothesis ready to be discussed, especially considering the historic context of Cabot where Latin was already faded out in favor of regional variations of the modern Italian.

Medende (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that I realize, it is even sad that you modified my personal first argumentation. Please, regard your behaving. Medende (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Terra nova is also galician(north spain), portuguese and catalan, if "The first European visitors to Newfoundland were Portuguese, Spanish, French and English migratory fishermen."... makes more sense a portuguese or spanish origin for the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.62.184.190 (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Better map

It was not clear to me, where on the planet Newfoundland is located, after watching the photos on this page. 86.22.65.222 (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Cape Spear

Why is this only "arguably" the easternmost point of North America, according to the article? Surely it is, or it isn't. The Cape Spear article is definite on the matter, why not here? 86.31.7.99 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I changed it; noting the points made further up this talk page back in 2006. 86.31.7.99 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 07 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move the island to Newfoundland (island) and point the base name to Newfoundland and Labrador. The consensus was very clear that the island should be moved, and was nearly as clear that the province is the primary topic of the term "Newfoundland". Cúchullain ^t/c 15:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

---

• Newfoundland → Newfoundland (island)
• Newfoundland (disambiguation) → Newfoundland

– The most common usage if "Newfoundland" is for the province Newfoundland and Labrador or historically, the preceding country/colony. Therefore, the island should be displaced, and Newfoundland repointed to the province article, the current incarnation which succeeded the country, or replaced with the disambiguation page. That can be seen in Google News, Google Books, Google results for names of provincial organizations for all of NL -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved from technical move requests

WP:BRD -- moved without discussion; this type of move is why WP:RM exists, so should have had a discussion  – 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Technical move was disputed.

NOTE: "Newfoundland (island)" was renamed to "Newfoundland" in 2013 and "Newfoundland" was moved to "Newfoundland (disambiguation)", in an undiscussed move. Thus this is the background to the BRD technical reversion request that was rejected at RMTR. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support the first, but redirect to the province. I fully agree that this should see a requested move, but I support the move. The island is (basically) only significant because of the people living on it, who are organized under the province. Type the name of other famous islands (without the word "island", obviously) into Wikipedia, and most - if they belong to one state or province, and form the majority of that one state or province - will talk about the country or province located on the island. See Cuba, Tasmania, Puerto Rico, Malta, Greenland, etc... most people looking for Newfoundland expect to find useful information like the population of the province, what its capital is, etc. The disambiguation page proposal helps no one. Red Slash 23:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • To clarify--strong oppose the disambiguation page being at Newfoundland. This is clearly the worst option. Red Slash 23:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as per nom (although I don't think there was anything inherently wrong with the bold 2013 move, but it does merit revisiting), and I agree with Red Slash that the plain title should redirect to the province. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The word "Newfoundland" may have referred to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the past, but it doesn't anymore. That usage was deemed discriminatory against Labrador more than a decade ago. We shouldn't be promoting outdated biases on Wikipedia. The article about the island does discuss the people who live on it, and it does not discuss the people who live in Labrador, which makes sense. When the word "Newfoundland" is used without "and Labrador", the island is by far the most common intended meaning. The article about the island should continue to be considered the primary target. Neelix (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I certainly wouldn't support moving the article on the province to this title, but WP:RNEUTRAL, which is policy, says that redirects do not have to be neutral or unbiased. See Hotlanta, the first example that occurs to me. Red Slash 01:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• support In this case, it's better to have the unadorned NewFoundland be the disambiguation page, because the uses are competing and ambiguous.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Since the CFD categories has halted in a no consensus for renaming. Steam5 (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't halted as "no consensus", but rather was halted temporarily to see how this discussion resolves itself. If this proposal is approved by the community, then the CFD discussion presumably becomes moot. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per evidence provided by Skeezix1000. In the US, the term usually used is "Newfoundland" for both historical & current context. Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support article, neutral for dab - I believe that the province is the main meaing of "Newfoundland", even if the residents of Labrador dispute this. The page "Newfoundland" should either be a redirect to the province, or a dab page linking to it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• While it's true that Newfoundland and Labrador is the province's official and proper name, it's also true that historically it was just "Newfoundland" — and rightly or wrongly many users who aren't that familiar with Canada do still refer to it that way today. So, since people typing in or linking to just "Newfoundland" are likeliest by far to intend the province rather than the island per se — whether that's by historical context or by lack of information doesn't matter — the province is the primary meaning of the title "Newfoundland", and should be where that term points the reader. Which is not to say that the province's main article should be moved there (it absolutely shouldn't), but the title should redirect to the province since that's the topic people are by far the likeliest to intend. Support nom, with the undisambiguated Newfoundland redirecting to the province and the disambiguation page remaining at its existing location. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support rename of Newfoundland → Newfoundland (island), but Newfoundland should redirect to Newfoundland and Labrador, with the DAB page remaining as is. I do think that the primary meaning of the name "Newfoundland" is still the province (despite the technical inaccuracy/outdatedness of such a reference), and that's what readers will usually be looking for when that name is searched for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Historically "Newfoundland" meant only the island, and so I have seen in several atlases. Abbreviatory shortening of Newfoundland and Labrador to "Newfoundland" is another matter; how common is it if we exclude uses as a disambiguator (in Wikipedia and also elsewhere) in addresses of people and places? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Historically, the province was named "Newfoundland" without the Labrador portion. So it is very common to call it in that manner historically, and it is still common to refer to the province in that manner. The island specifically, would be distinguished by calling it "The Rock" or "The Island of Newfoundland". -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I categorically disagree. It is highly irregular and uncommon for the province as a whole to be referred to as "Newfoundland". In the vast majority of cases in contemporary literature and dialogue, "Newfoundland" refers to the island and people specify "and Labrador" to refer to the province. I see no evidence in the search results to suggest otherwise. Neelix (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
      • It is neither irregular nor uncommon to call the province "Newfoundland". I'm surprised that you, a Canadian, would even say that. The province was formerly officially called "Newfoundland", and that usage still persists. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Your statement that this usage persists does not correspond to my experience as a Newfoundlander, nor does it correspond with the literature I see written in the past decade or so. I see no evidence that people continue to use the term "Newfoundland" to refer to the entire province. Neelix (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you both have very different experiences simply underlines that the term in ambiguous. I have to say, though, my experience is much closer to 65.94.171.126 -- people routinely refer to the province as Newfoundland. Just glancing at the Globe and Mail, it took me 1 minute to find three examples of articles in the past couple of days using "Newfoundland" to refer to the province (here, here and here - I am sure I could find many more examples if I took more than 60 seconds with the search function). While I don't doubt that the newspaper uses the accurate provincial name more often, the fact that one of this country's newspapers of record still commonly reverts to the old usage is pretty good evidence that usage is not as unambiguous as Neelix believes. I note that the Canadian Press Stylebook even acknowledges and permits the ambiguous usage: "Use the full name of Canada's easternmost province, Newfoundland and Labrador, whenever space permits. Newfoundland, alone, can be used in more casual references or when the island only is being described." (p. 278) While I have no doubt that Newfoundlanders themselves may be more precise, on Wikipedia we focus on the common usage in the big wide world.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I just spent another three minutes with Google and found a number of recent references to the province of Newfoundland, with nary a mention of the word Labrador: Reuters, Huffington Post Canada, Calgary Herald, Yahoo News, etc. Finding instances where well-known reliable sources use the term "Newfoundland" to refer to the province is like shooting fish in a barrel. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• See also request at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_6 -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I am inclined to "oppose" as the context, i.e. that of the two main divisions of the province, is not well-addressed by "(island)", as the "Newfoundland" part of the province includes other islands than the Rock itself. It's not one island, in other words, it's a subregion of the province, in the way that Vancouver Island is a subregion of British Columbia. Also, we don't dab Greenland (island) or Spitsbergen (islands) (or Svaldbard (islands), whichever it is).Skookum1 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So you want to merge this article into Newfoundland and Labrador because Greenland is a unitary article? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You have a too-familiar way of extrapolating something very different from what I said. Not worth answering that question, which is reductionism at its worst.Skookum1 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Rock

The usage of The Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see RfD for the discussion. It is suggested that it be repointed. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The article does not claim this alias, therefore the RfD is irrelevant here. Paradoctor (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. You make the error of WP:COMPLETE. Wikipedia is not a complete repository of human knowledge, articles are not the final say in all things about the topic they cover. It's ridiculously easy to show the Island is called "The Rock" [7] -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

C'mon, you're not a newbie. That's not a reliable source. If it is easy to show, then add it to the article. As long as that hasn't happened, WP:POFRED applies: "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." (my emphasis) Paradoctor (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That is how it's done. Paradoctor (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

For some reason I mistakenly thought this article was protected (thus I couldn't change the text). My non-RS was just to show that it was commonly thusly called. Thanks to Skeezix1000 for the update. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk)

If you can't do an edit yourself, you can use {{editprotected}} to request it.

"non-RS" If the source is not reliable, why should I trust it? Paradoctor (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As it was a simple discussion about content, and not a structured change request with full text of changes, it shows usage in the world at large. The existence of that webpage itself shows usage. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It shows usage, that's right. But please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE #3. For a nickname to be encyclopedic, it needs to be listed in a reliable source, which some yahoo on the nets isn't. Paradoctor (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be readily citable as a usage on CBC/CTV and especially in Newfoundland publications like The Independent as well as the major papers. That it turns up in "some yahoo on the nets"' webpage is a demonstration of the usage, and it's so common that 50 of these could be found fairly easily...unless you would maintain that all Newfoundland websites are "some yahoo on the nets" (by that usage, I'm guessing you're in the UK maybe?).Skookum1 (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"readily citable" The discussion with the IP was about using a specific unreliable source to support the claim. I never claimed that there can be no sources for the claim.

"50 of these could be found" Sure, but that would be WP:OR, wouldn't it?

"in the UK" Hein? What's that got to do with anything? Paradoctor (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

that you might not be familiar with the prevalence of the usage on the other side of the Pond. And among those 50 sources could well be histories of Newfoundland, books and papers on Newfoundland culture and identity, etc. It's not like the term is spurious.Skookum1 (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"spurious" Where did I say that? As I said before, the discussion with the IP revolved about a specific source.

"could" There could also be tableware orbiting the Sun.

"pond" Um, it was my impression that we decide editorial issues by consensus, not by the perceived authority or lack thereof of the contributors. BTW, "yahoo" is not a British property. Paradoctor (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery

I think it would be appropriate to have a link to this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery), given the huge impact it had on the economy of Newfoundland. It was a time of great upset. Surprised to see it's not even mentioned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.96.14 (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

How is there NO discussion whatsoever about climate??

I know that specific climate data is more suited to specific locations such as cities and landmarks. However, similar locations throughout the world have got smaller sections on geography and climate. I think this is a significant weakness in this article, and a geography/climate paragraph at the very least should be added...

Bomb319 (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unaccurate map

In the first map of this article, Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon are missing, while the non-Newfoundland Canadian coast is present. As it is not supposed to be a purely geographical map showing only Canadian land, it seems to be quiet an issue. Someone should edit the file on Commons (I don't know how to do it) to properly show Newfoundland and its surroundings. Encolpe (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed. Encolpe (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect location

I’m trying to figure out how Newfoundland is in the western part of Canada, like how. It’s clearly southeast of labrador. Markellrogan03 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)