text:
Talk:Lexical semantics

RM Dechaine (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JesseA123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition
Believe it or not, in Linguistics, so-called "Lexical Semantics" is NOT the study of the meanings of word. It is, roughly, the study of how the semantic organization of the lexicon interacts with syntax. (I have taken several courses on lexical semantics. I am still waiting to be told the meaning of a single word.) 171.64.42.82 06:16, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The article below tells us that lexical semantics is the study of word meaning and its representation in the lexicon. Perhaps this reflects a more implementation oriented view of computational linguistics. Hirzel 12:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The intro states that LS is a theory of denotation. That is, at the best, a small part of the truth (as shown by the Morning Star paradox) (He thinks the Morning Star is (not) the Evening Star, but the names denote the same entity). I agree with 171.64... above, who expects lexical semantics to tell what the words mean. We study words, not things (denotata). One relevant theoretician is Anna Wierzbicka, another tradition (when it is at its best) can be found within lexicography. Trondtr 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

"Words may either be taken to denote things in the world or concepts, depending on the particular approach to lexical semantics."
 * Doesn't "either" suggest an alternative (as in "words may either be taken to be X, or Y)? It feels like a chunk of this sentence was removed, but the editing was too crude to also fix the "either" part.79.183.183.207 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 * The suggestion to define the study of lexical semantics in as the "study of how semantic organization of the lexicon interacts with syntax" is a good one, and I recommend that the introductory text be revised accordingly.--RM Dechaine (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a master's in communications linguistics and I can assure you that on lexical semantics; the meaning of a single word is defined as/by the measure of One Unit of Meaning, whatever that meaning is therein irrelevant, rather that the word is used to denote meaning, as a signifier, the world's meaning is one unit of what is being signified. — ξriηξlaiηε—Ꭶαωժεηξηglaηժ Eewolf xxii (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Resources

 * 1) http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~vraskin/Choices-TR.pdf Ten choices for lexical semantics;

Hirzel 12:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point of contention
The current article states: "Lexical units are the words so lexical semantics involves the meaning of each individual word. Lexical semantics is the one area of linguistics to which we can continually add throughout our lives, as we are always learning new words and their meanings whereas we can only learn the rules of our native language during the critical period when we are young."

Many would raise issue with this statement. The concepts of critical periods, and the limitations on learning native language at a young age, are not completely agreed upon. Many would argue that all languaging is an ongoing process, not just the learning of new words. We are forever reassessing our conception of our native language. Be careful with statements like "lexical semantics is the ONE area..."; it's just not that clear.

71.70.188.146 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Annotated bibliography
As a part of a linguistics university course, my group members and I will be expanding upon this stub in the next couple months. Below are some of the sources we plan to use, along with brief annotations detailing our reasons for selecting them.

Aronoff, M. (1978). Language and perception. [Review of the book: Language and Perception by G. A. Miller and P. N. Johnson-Laird]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7-1, 61-72. doi:10.1007/BF01068046

A book review of Language and Perception. Most of the book covers lexical semantics, shedding some light on its history and inception. It references feature theory as a branch of lexical semantics which, according to this review, is closely related to generative grammar. Miller and Johnson theorize that a word has two parts that define its meaning: a concept (its meaning) and a schema (what its concept refers to; its function). While the review also poses interesting questions about the nature of words and their relative meanings, it does little in the way of answering them.

Beavers, J., Levin, B. & Wei Tham, Shiao (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46, pp 331-377 doi:10.1017/ S0022226709990272

This abstract is of interest on many levels, one of which is typologically or cross-linguistically. Linguists refer to the encoding of movement, including verbs of motion, as encoding motion events. Without wanting to undermine Talmy's proposal that there are basically two ways of encoding motion events across languages, this paper proposes that what is needed is to look at the whole area of motion events from a different perspective, as recent studies reveal a much greater cross linguistic variation. Beth Levin(linguist) has written extensively on verbs and seems to be currently very active in this field of research. The abstract is certainly challenging at a student level but has interesting examples of how languages use morphology and syntax independent of the verb itself to encode movement.

Cushing, S. (1979). Lexical functions and lexical decomposition: An algebraic approach to lexical meaning. Linguistic Inquiry, 10-2, 327-345. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178110

Likens a lexicon to a highly structured algebra with domains, ranges, and lexical constraints. The article also talks about the use of functions over semantic markers to describe lexical meaning, the latter of which, according to Cushing, generally aren't of any significance outside of lexical meaning. The article itself seems rather mathematically computational in nature, however, which might be somewhat difficult to grasp.

Gainotti, G., Nocentini, U., Daniele, A., & Silveri, M. C. (1989). The nature of lexical-semantic impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 4(3-4), 449-460.

This peer-reviewed article discusses the hypothesis that the lexical-semantic relationship is not fixed within older, monolingual populations, and ultimately theorizes that the lexical-semantic relationship is dynamic throughout life. It highlights some general theories surrounding lexical semantics including semantic markers and the underlying organization of word types, while applying a Chomskyan-approach to lexical-semantic disorders in an Alzheimer’s population: namely, what we can learn about lexical-semantics when things go wrong. Note: During my research, I found a significant number of related articles even after changing keywords, etc. I believe the wealth of literature available means we should reflect this by including a subsection in our Wiki on the nature of lexical-semantic impairments, in which case this would be a good source. Having said this, a general shortcoming of this article is that it is very specific, and does not discuss lexical semantics broadly. Overall, I found this work to be interesting and a good candidate to include in a subsection of our Wiki because of its comprehensiveness covering the largely researched topic of lexical-semantic impairment.

Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press.

This book seems to be much acclaimed, especially for its unique and timely appearance on the market as it presents an up to date overview of major trends in lexical semantics going back to the mid nineteenth century. Each of these traditions is presented in a chapter. The five chapters are: 1. historical philological semantics 2. structuralist semantics 3. generativist semantics 4. neostructuralist semantics 5. cognitive semantics. Besides the main ideas, Geeraerts gives major publications and important scholars throughout the history of this field, making it an excellent reference for intermediate students as well. As Geeraerts’ current research focuses on cognitive semantics, it is to be expected that he favours this newest trend in cognitive approaches to meaning. The last chapters in particular could be useful to gain a better understanding of where lexical semantics is at and where it is going.

Goddard, C. (2011). The lexical semantics of language. Language Sciences, 33(1), 40-57. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.03.003

This article discusses word meanings across various languages, cultures and domains. It also expresses on the lacking status of lexical semantics in the linguistics field. This article contains many cross-linguistic studies to show word meaning relationships between them which is definitely valuable to understand differences and similarities that may arise with respect to lexical semantics. This article is written with a very empirical and analytical view/ approach which allows clear understanding to how words like ‘language’ and ‘culture’ contributed to the area of lexical semantics. However, one particular shortcoming of this article is that some information and examples that are provided are very detailed which may not be suitable for our project. Nevertheless, this article provides examples and information on studies that may fit under many categories of our Wikipedia project on lexical semantics.

Harris, R. A. (1995). The Linguistics Wars. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

This academically published book provides a focus on the theoretical debates within the 1960s and 1970s in reference to generative semantics. There are multiple chapters detailing the theoretical history of generative semantics. These provide a large amount of information, some of which appears to be useful in reference to the field of lexical semantics. This book may be most useful for the overall theoretical history it provides, and should aid in the understanding of the different theoretical models and how we have ended up where we are today. It may prove difficult to sift through all the information in the book, and the highly theoretical, historical and discussion-based nature of the book means that it provides only a broad view of the topics. We will have to look elsewhere for specifics and examples.

Johnson, K. (2008). An overview of lexical semantics. Philosophy Compass, 3(1), 119-134. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00101.x

This article gives a brief overview of lexical semantics, specifically delving into research on the grammatical distribution in semantic structure. It then discusses the relation between words and the concepts they’re connected to. Given that this article was written from a philosophical viewpoint—it was published in a philosophy journal—it gives some valuable insight into the origins of lexical semantics from the philosophical study of word meanings. One shortcoming of this piece, for the scope of our research at least, is that it delves a little too deeply into specific details of semantics research. Personally, I believe this article will be useful for brief details regarding the connections between philosophy and lexical semantics, but may not prove useful beyond that.

Johnson-Laird, P. (1987). The mental representation of the meaning of words. Cognition, 25(1-2), 189-211.

This peer-reviewed article is a good ‘foundation’ piece for the Wiki project, as it discusses lexical semantics in five core areas: (1) the limited, introspective access to the nature of lexical representations; (2) the existence of lexical entries that make accessible the sense of a word; (3) the effects of context on the interpretation of words; (4) the systematic gaps in the acquisition of lexical knowledge; and (5) the existence of different semantic types of open-class words. In the last section, the different semantic types help to provide evidence for the author’s claim that we can be conscious of what a word means and be conscious of the HOW and the WHY we know it, but are unconscious of the underlying structure, and what this means for our understanding of the particular lexicon. The topic is largely written from a syntactician standpoint. The article was dense and somewhat complex, but I believe that this information from the late 80’s presents a nice platform for introducing the more modern thoughts on our topic.

Lappin, S. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

This academically published book provides a clear understanding of the field of semantics, with specific focus in one chapter on lexical semantics and syntactic structure. The book is written to provide an overview of all important topics related to semantic theory. The lexical semantics and syntactic structure chapter provides a brief discussion of the history of semantics and syntax in relation to each other, and goes on to introduce the non-accusative hypothesis. This chapter also provides a case study of ‘verbs of sound’ as a way of analyzing ways in which semantics and syntax work together to dictate structure for certain types of words. There are additional chapters with focus on formal semantics and the interference between syntax and semantics which provide information which supports the field of lexical semantics. Further research may be necessary before understanding whether these additional chapters will be useful for us, as lots of fringe information seems to be presented and it will be difficult at this point in our research to know how useful they will be.

Storjohann, P. (2010). Lexical-semantic relations: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Philadelphia; Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co.

This book concerns over different understandings of lexical semantics with regards to “sense relations”. In efforts to explore various use of data as lexical resource, it also focuses on the building of these lexical resources. This book also contains many cross-linguistic studies to show word meaning relationships between them. The points made in this book regarding lexical semantics may be useful for branching into specific ideas in our Wikipedia presentation. This book is presented with a data based view which is great for unbiased understanding of the material. Yet, a shortcoming of this book is that it seems to focus too much on methodologies of lexical semantics which may not be the most useful for our project. Still, this book covers a lot of cross-linguistic examples that may also be helpful to understand what occurs between different languages with respect to lexical semantics.

Von Fintel, K., & Matthewson, L. (2008). Universals in semantics. Linguistic Review, 25(1-2), 139-201. doi:10.1515/TLR.2008.004

This article looks at the possibility of semantic universals. It examines the possibility of universals within the lexicon, functional morphemes and composition principles, and pragmatics. It may be very useful should we decide to make a subheading on the universals of lexical semantics i.e.what it looks like across different languages. We may find that it delves too deeply into the specifics of semantics research, which may not be necessary for our purposes.

Stephmau (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Review from C2
Hi C1! We're going to copy-edit your article by Sunday. :) We'll be posting the comments here most likely on Sunday night. Xmizuro (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(i) Clarity

The introduction is well formed and clearly states what the article is about. Proper linking makes this an accessible article for anyone with general to little linguistic knowledge. Furthermore, in the introduction, explanations following specific terminology are concise and self-explanatory, adding on the clarity of this article. However, lists of terminologies (one of which can be seen at the end of the introductory part) are better avoided to maintain a steady pace and clarity; a suggestion would be to find umbrella terms for the different terminologies if possible. This is a very narrow topic and it is expected that there will be lot of jargon. However, as a first time reader, some parts were very difficult to understand (e.g. history). It would be great if more links were added to different pages or terms could be explained. Words like syntactic atoms, lexical entry, and VP shells could be defined or linked.

(ii) Verifiability

Overall, your sources are verifiable and it’s possible to find the papers or books that were used in the article. However, “Glossary of Linguistic Terms” needs to be correctly cited; at the moment, there is only a link to the site and nothing else. Otherwise, there was no problem in verifying your sources. Regarding actually verifying what is on the Wikipedia page, most claims can be verified. However, there were a couple paragraphs in the article that could receive more citations. For example, the part where causality in English and Tagalog was mentioned; and in the introduction, which only had two citations, but many points about what lexical semantics is that could have been cited.

(iii) Neutrality

Overall, this article is edited from a neutral point of view. Basically, some of the controversial issues are presented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. However, some of the aspects need a better balance, in terms of the equal weight of clearness, validity, and significance to the article topics. Some of the terms just appear as a jargon with neither clear definition/introduction, nor links to other Wikipedia pages that can explain them to readers. For instance, in the section of “history of VP shells”, when ‘“lexicalist" theories’ is used, it is not clear what is being referred to. What are probing techniques exactly, and why are they more sophisticated?  Considering the target readers of Wikipedia, it would be helpful if more explanations or more related Wikipedia articles are introduced for these terminologies, since there are from various theoretical viewpoints.  Also in the section of “history of VP shells”, considering the neutrality expectation, the necessity of mentioning what are in the majority in current theories may need to be reconsidered.

(iv) Quality of research

The quality of research is good since the authors just started looking for sources. It’s good to see that papers from peer-reviewed journals and reliable books have been used. However, a few sources (Johnson, and SKS) are used repeatedly for several points throughout the article, causing a bit of dependency. It would be better to diversify and look at the topic from many different perspectives. There is a good overview on the history of the topic; however, the section is a little dense with all of the information presented. The quality of research is great, but a little bit difficult to read, requiring some re-wording.

(v) Comprehensiveness

The article presents its data and evidence in a concrete manner, easing the process of understanding the topic. Furthermore, the style and lay-out of the article aid in the presentation of the material, which ultimately impacts comprehensiveness. However, some data sections seem to be lacking explanations. Inchoative/Anticausative Verbs section is rather short and does not quite hit the mark in terms of comprehension. More information could be added to this section, as well as The Unaccusative Hypothesis and Ditransitive Verbs sections. The style of Causative Verbs and Changes of State sections are more ideal, as more information is provided and hence a much clearer understanding.

(vi) Lay-out

The outline of the article has a lovely flow to it and easily changes sections. The definitions of some words in-between parenthesis were particularly helpful, and overall terms were linked to related pages. There are a few word choices like “atom” where a definition or disambiguation might be in order to explain how it is different from the scientific term. The flow into the data section was nice, however within the section no direct reference was made to the examples. Perhaps explaining the examples explicitly would help readers new to the field better understand the examples. Labelling which language is used for the example within the box would make it easier to quickly read over the page. Overall though, the article looks great, it just needs a little more data and some fine tuning of the transitions. Some concluding statements after the data would help summarize the important points of the article as well as giving the reader some take away points about why such a topic is important in the field.

(vii) Citations

Lexical semantics has done well in using a variety of sources from which to obtain their information. Wikipedia has some formatting tools for citations, which will help uniform the reference section (currently, most of the references follow variant styles of formatting, or no formatting at all). There is a template provided in the editing pane for which one only has to fill out the necessary information. Because of the lack of uniform formatting, many of the citations are missing important information such as volume/issue number, and journal or article title. Further, for the data examples especially, page numbers (and original example numbers) from where in the article the information was found are crucially needed.

(viii) Images

There are currently no images in the article. Trees or diagrams of the verbs assigning theta roles to their arguments would help readers better understand the differences between the different verb examples.

(ix) Style

In general, this article has an informative lead section and also a sense of Wikipedia-style framework. However, the consistency between the introduction in the lead section and the actual content in the following sections needs to be improved. The framework of the section headings, as well as the way the section headings are named may also need more consideration. The leading section provides a detailed overview of the article topic, but the framework of the topic that is described in the lead section (the three main areas the topic covers) do not seem to be consistently developed in the following sections. Otherwise, the content of the lead is good and clear. It seems that if second and third paragraph were swapped, the overall layout would look clearer and smoother. “What the topic covers” is more of the general and basic information that the readers expect, while “the unit of meaning” is a more specific concept and is closer related to the fourth paragraph. Also, there is no link on “syntax” between when it firstly appears in the first paragraph, until it appears again in the third paragraph. Most of the sections provide very well focused and profound discussion. The headings of the sections are very specific about the actual content within every section, but if we look at the overall framework with these heading (i.e. the content table), it does not seem to give readers a systematic sense of the concrete structure of the topic. All the contents are under “syntax of lexical semantics”, which are further divided into “introduction”, “history of VP shells,” and paralleled with three specific yet seemingly segmental sections. For instance, “history of VP shells”— it might be a specific term from the literature and it is a very vivid way of expression, but for the ease of the readers, if might be a better choice to change it to a more Wikipedia-style heading, namely, a more concise and direct one, similar to some of the other headings. Overall, try to choose some more descriptive headings, so that readers will be able to predict what each section is about, rather than using jargon or unfamiliar terms. Regarding the major purposes of Wikipedia, it would be more effective if the headings are clear, concise, and make sense to general readers, so that they can tract the contents, and find the answers of this topic that they may have in their mind before they start reading. Some suggestions include: (1) In the history section, there is “probing techniques” that “allowed syntacticians to hypothesize that lexical items with complex syntactic features (such as ditransitive, inchoative, and causative verbs), could select their own specifier element within a syntax tree construction.” Maybe try to start a new subsection here, and move the following specific subsection under this one? (2) Also under the history section, you start talking about current theories, maybe give it an independent section, and start elaborating it from there. (3) In “there are two types of change of state verbs: inchoative and causative” —it may be prudent to give two separate sub headings to introduce each concept. Lastly, there is no “binary-branching” page — it is a dead link.

Copy-edits

 * Edited some minor grammatical mistakes such as spelling and the use of As and Vs for adjectives and verbs. Also edited some non-neutral words such as “influential researchers”. Xmizuro (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed over-linking of causative and inchoative in Change of state section FulcoE (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed linking/structure of hyponymy and hypernymy so that both words act as the same link (given that there's one page only) FulcoE (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed Fodor citation to follow template guidelines, and linked several unfamiliar terms found within the article. -Tsadler00 (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tightened some of the wording in the introductory paragraphs, reduced repetitive phrasing and and changed passive voice to active voice.LingAnthNerd (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Swapped the contents in lead section; added link to "syntax";  changed link layout in "History of VP shells section"Ziyasummer (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed citations
Since there were a couple sources that were cited multiple times in the footnotes (specifically, the Johnson and Lappin sources), I united them under a single footnote for each. Let me know if any of you want help with this in the future! Stephmau (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Revisions of Aritcle
Referring to C2's comments/feedback, we (C1) have revised the article accordingly.

(i) Clarity •	The introduction has been streamlined to make it as simple to read as possible for readers, while still giving a clear picture of what lexical semantics is. We have removed the list of terminologies in the introduction, moving them to a more appropriate subsection for further clarification.

(ii) Verifiability •      Sources cited in our article come from standard linguistic literature and we have attempted to footnote as often as needed. Many of our sources (if not all) come from peer-reviewed journals and academic online databases, making them verifiable. We have also properly cited the “Glossary of Linguistic Terms” reference mentioned by Group C2, crediting the website’s editors and adding the website title to the reference.

(iii) Neutrality •	Terms that were regarded as jargon have now been briefly explained and linked to other Wikipedia pages. Additionally, adjectives such as “prominent” when referring to theorists and syntacticians have been removed to maintain Wikipedia’s pillar of neutrality.

(iv) Quality of research •	We have expanded our list of sources, referring to works by a variety of respected linguists (Haspelmath, Kayne, etc.) to add more balanced, diverse content to our article. The history section will also be expanded with more research and certain sections are still in progress.. • (v) Comprehensiveness •	Regarding your concerns about our change of state section, we have made appropriate changes to the inchoative/causative section as well as the ditransitive/unaccusative sections. We have given more concise introductions explaining why these sections are related to the overall topic of lexical semantics, and clarified why certain examples were given to better explain these types of verbs. •	The ditransitive verb section was changed to the ‘change-of-possession predicates’ section, and has been edited to include more thoroughly introduced and explained examples. Tree diagrams were also added for each example. Two sub-sections were added to cover in more depth the two theories that have dealt specifically with ditransitive verbs and their tree structures. Within the Unambiguous path section, more tree diagrams were added in order to fully illustrate the theory. The theory is also introduced and explained in reference to the introductory information for a more comprehensive look at how the theories developed and contrast. (vi) Lay-out •	As previously mentioned, we have taken your comments into consideration regarding the layout of the examples and added steps to make them as clear as possible. In the inchoative/causative alternation section, we have added the names of the languages within the examples to make it more immediately clear, and we have also placed examples in their proper context.

(vii) Citations •	To avoid cluttering and to reduce redundancy, the citations appearing more than once are linked as a/b/c, etc. in the references section..

(viii) Images •	We have added pictures of tree diagrams where appropriate to clarify and give examples from other languages.Tree diagrams have been formatted in a uniform manner, and have all been introduced and explained in a way that weaves them in with the information as it is introduced.

(ix) Style •	Based on the comments made by group C2 and help from our Linguistics 300 instructor, Rose-Marie Déchaine, Ph.D, we have revised the style and framework of our article. First, we introduced our main focus “lexical semantics,” and broke this topic down from the existing Wiki stub into three specific sections: 1) Semantic classification of lexical items 2) The syntactic basis of event structure: a brief history, and 3) Syntactic analysis of event types. These three topics make it easier to maintain the Wiki-structure and keep the layout consistent, which was one of C2’s concerns. •	Furthermore, these three topics are more specific than our previous headings. This was an improvement from our last version, where sections tended to be too long without subheadings. For example, we have broken the “change of state verbs” into their own sections, namely organizing subheadings for “change of possession” and “change of state predicates”. This was possible through the feedback we received from C2 and Dr. Déchaine. •	Additional internal links have been added to the article, specifically,  and more specific information, including links to noteworthy books and literature that are available on Wikipedia (such as “Syntactic Structures” by Noam Chomsky). The dead link mentioned by group C2 has been removed. Veegu (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

English
semantic structure components 49.207.231.14 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lexical semantics


text:
Sovereign Council of New France

The Sovereign Council (Conseil souverain) was a governing body in New France. It served as both Supreme Court for the colony of New France, as well as a policy-making body, though this latter role diminished over time. The council, though officially established in 1663 by King Louis XIV of France, was not created from whole cloth, but rather evolved from earlier governing bodies. As early as 1647, a council of three was created by the King. In 1648, this council was enlarged to include five members. The Sovereign Council came to be known as the Superior Council (Conseil Supérieur) as early as June 16, 1703, when Louis XIV issued a royal edict referring to it as the Superior Council instead of its former name, and increasing the number of sitting Councilors from seven to twelve.

The institution lasted from its introduction in 1663 to the fall of New France in 1760. Its last meeting occurred on April 28, 1760, the day of the Battle of Sainte-Foy.

Creation of the Council
In April 1662, Louis XIV issued an edict creating a new governing council named the "Sovereign Council." The new Sovereign Council had a broad policy mandate. The edict creating the Council authorized it to spend public funds, regulate the fur trade, regulate trade between colonists and French merchants, and issue police measures. The council was also to create a system of lower courts in Québec, Montréal, and Trois-Rivières, and was to appoint judges, bailiffs and other court officials. The Sovereign Council possessed a larger membership than previous colonial councils, having nine members in 1663. These nine members were the governor general, the bishop (or, in his absence, the senior ecclesiastic), five councilors, an attorney general, and a clerk.

The creation of the Sovereign Council was part of a broader effort to reform the administration of New France by Louis XIV and his finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. The King and Colbert felt that New France's administration had been badly mismanaged by charter companies and that the colony should be brought under tighter monarchal control. There was also a concern in the colony over the growing power of the Governor, especially in regard to the Church. In 1663, the colony was made an official province of the Kingdom of France. The crown's contract with the Company of One Hundred Associates, the main charter company in New France, was cancelled, and a new Charter company called the French West India Company was created.

The Council and the Intendant
Around this time, the office of Intendant of New France was also established. The intendant was to be in charge of police, justice, and finance in the colony. Shortly after the post's creation in 1665, the intendant began to sit on the Sovereign Council, though its place on the council was not made official until 1675. Over time, the intendant became more powerful, and some of the former responsibilities of the council were shifted to the intendant, with the power to appoint lower court officials being granted to the position in 1680.

Functions and achievements
One of the Sovereign Council's greatest achievements was its efficacy in processing civil suits. Contemporary evidence suggests that from the day defendants were summoned to court, they had one or two weeks to appear with their summons, at which time a verdict was definitively reached. More than just a judicial body, however, the Sovereign Council made lasting achievements in agriculture, commerce, the maintenance of public order, and sanitation. Many of these achievements were in the first century of the Sovereign Council's existence, prior to the dissolution of some of its responsibilities to the increasingly centralized intendant and other offices. The Sovereign Council exercised considerable authority over New France's economic affairs. It dictated when certain types of commercial interactions could occur, and public markets in Québec City, Montréal and Trois Rivières were only established under the Sovereign Council's auspices. It was also the primary regulatory body for coinage, regulating colonial weights, measures and scales until paper currency surpassed metal currency in 1685. The Sovereign Council was very involved in early attempts to stimulate economic activity and maximize agricultural productivity. Ordinances mandated that seigneurs clear their seigneurs within an allotted time, and exempted small crops from yearly tithes for the first five years of cultivation. The Council sometimes directly intervened on behalf of the peasantry, the foundation of the colony. In 1680, it decreed that one-twentieth of uncleared land be made available to peasants. In an effort to protect the peasant's most valuable commodity, the cow, a 1686 ordinance enforced Louis XIV's edict that creditors could not seize cattle for debts until the year 1692. Similarly, after complaints were made that merchant monopolies were storing surpluses of wheat and preventing its circulation on the market in 1701, the Sovereign Council ordered a committee to inspect Quebec's granaries. The committee found that merchant monopolies were unfairly keeping surpluses, and the Sovereign Council consequently ordered that the surplus be seized and sold to the poor at a subsidized rate.

While the Council had to execute the King's administrative policies, it was often able to act independently given the geographic expanse of New France and its distance from metropolitan France. For example, the Sovereign Council allowed seigneurs to extract undue feudal tithes from peasants, which ran contrary to the Coutume de Paris until Louis XIV intervened and abolished the practice in 1717. The Sovereign Council undertook other policies aimed at the maintenance of public order with mixed success. A 1663 ordinance mandated the collection of extra food and clothing to distribute amongst the poor as part of an effort to mitigate social unrest. A 1668 edict established commissions distinguishing between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. This notion that the deserving poor were worthy of local, parish-administered aid while the undeserving poor were destitute law-breakers was common in metropolitan France and Western Europe at the time. Reflecting colonial society's emphasis on righteousness and morality, the Sovereign Council mandated that every tavern-keeper provide sufficient proof of his virtuous character in order to obtain a business licence.

Attempts to improve public infrastructure were met with limited success. Early ventures in constructing roads proved especially futile given the necessity and the prevalence of rivers as a means of transportation. A 1664 ordinance that mandated inhabitants in the Grande Allée leave part of their land along the riverbed unsown was largely ignored for example. Peasants needed river access for their personal drinking water, crops, animals, and transportation. The Sovereign Council ordered the creation of the first highway linking Quebec to the countryside in 1667. In 1696, it delegated these responsibilities to the senior road surveyor, le grand voyer, with local captains of the militia in charge of overseeing the quality of the roads in each seigneurie. The Council exhibited some degree of commitment to sanitation and waste management, paving central town streets to minimize weather damage and accumulation of waste. One of its greater successes was actually enforcing an ordinance mandating that inhabitants in Quebec's Lower Town clear the area in front of their homes, until a seasonal worker with a horse and cart was eventually introduced. The Sovereign Council's only ordinance mandating wells be drilled in Upper and Lower Canada in 1687 was never realized. Cahall notes that drilling wells was likely not a priority because no epidemics arose as a result of inhabitants drinking contaminated water under the entirety of the Sovereign Council's administration from 1663 to 1760. Moreover, townspeople drank river water for the entirety of French colonial rule without much concern.

The Sovereign Council as a Superior Court
The Sovereign Council acted as the court of appeal for decisions made in the lower courts in New France. Any criminal conviction could be appealed to the Council. There was some hope in a more favourable outcome, as the attorney general who sat on the Council was the only official in New France required having formal university legal training.

The Sovereign Council could also amend verdicts without overturning convictions. In 1734, an African slave burned her owner's home in protest. The local magistrate ordered the accused to be burned alive, but the Council intervened and commuted the punishment to death by hanging.

The crimes prosecuted by the colonial judicial system, and, by extension, the Sovereign Council, were diverse, although extra weight was given to crimes that undermined France's colonial interests. An increasing problem was acts against the crown including forgery, where subjects created counterfeit money by modifying their playing cards (also a source of money at the time), and this comprised approximately 17% of all cases in the 18th century. Also rising as a proportion of all crimes over the 18th century were violent crimes like assault, which constituted approximately 1/3rd of all cases.

Concentration of prosecuted crimes was mainly around urban settings, notwithstanding the fact that towns represented only an average of 20% of New France's population. A large majority of the trials were held in Montreal, indicating a higher rate of crime further away from the seat of government and closer to the frontier. Approximately a third of the punishments mandated for the various crimes were fines, and a fifth executions.

Conflict and the regulation of alcohol
A challenge that influenced the development of the Sovereign Council was the regulation of alcohol traded with Natives. Bishop François de Laval had called for an outright prohibition on the sale of alcohol to Indigenous Peoples in the early 1660s, and conflict between the Church and Jesuits on one hand and the Governor on the other is argued to have contributed to the establishment of the Council. The Council eventually agreed with the Bishop's demands, but with a fine as opposed to a harsher punishment for conviction initially, but the issue would remain open. Prohibition of alcohol transactions to Aboriginals was an important cause to the Church, who was fearful of Native drunkenness. However, the majority of the Council was not willing to prosecute violators to the full extent of the legislation. Led by intendant Jean Talon, the Council then legalized the trade – not for moral reasons, but to increase profits of colonial subjects. An interim period followed where the Sovereign Council refused to mete out any sentences for the crimes, but the Church would excommunicate suspected traders. The activity did regain its illicit status, but the number of cases of the activity that made prosecution was trending downwards significantly throughout the later 18th century. Traffic of alcohol to Natives was only a minor crime by the mid-18th century.

Composition
The Sovereign Council included nine officials who were fully responsible for all legislative, executive, and judicial matters. It made rules and enacted laws concerning the day-to-day affairs of the colony

 * The Governor General of New France was the direct representative of the king of France and was responsible for defense and diplomatic relations.
 * The Apostolic Vicar for New France (after 1674, Bishop of New France) was in control of religious affairs, which included charity, education, hospitals and the Christianization of Amerindians.
 * The Intendant of New France was responsible for economic affairs and trade, the administration of justice, finance, settlement and seigneurialism. He traveled from house to house asking what should be improved.
 * The Captain of the Militia informed the inhabitants of the Intendant's plans for the development for the colony, reported on the concerns of the people, and tallied the census. As New France became better organized, further captains were added in each province to fulfill the duties of the Council.
 * Five councillors served as a Court of Appeal and as a governing body, and they formed the colony's senior court of law. In 1703, the number of councillors was increased to twelve. Prior to 1675, the councillors were appointed by the Governor General and thereafter by the King alone. Amongst these councillors were included the offices of Procurator General and Registrar of New France.

Intendant of New France
The Indendant was President of the Council.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sovereign Council of New France


text:
Kapolei, Hawaii

Kapolei is a planned community in Honolulu County, Hawaiʻi, United States, on the island of Oʻahu. It is colloquially known as the "second city" of Oʻahu, in relation to Honolulu. For statistical purposes, the United States Census Bureau has defined Kapolei as a census-designated place (CDP) within the consolidated city-county of Honolulu.

The community takes its name from a volcanic cone, Puʻu o Kapolei. In the Hawaiian language, puʻu means "hill" and Kapo lei means "beloved Kapo". According to legend, Kapo, Goddess of Fertility was sister to Pele, Goddess of Fire and Nāmaka, Goddess of the Sea.

Much of the land is part of the estate of industrialist James Campbell. Kapolei's major developer is Kapolei Property Development, a subsidiary of James Campbell Company. Kapolei sits primarily upon former sugarcane and pineapple fields.

Demographics
As of the 2020 census, there were 21,411 people, 6,583 housing units, and 6,822 families in the CDP. Kapolei in 2020 had a population density of 4,900.7 inhabitants per square mile. The racial makeup was 14.0% White (2,358 people), 2.5% African American (560), 0.0% Native American (40), 29.7% Asian (7,432), 15.8% Pacific Islander (3,052), and 37.2% from two or more races (7,623). A total of 12.9% (2,675) of the population had Hispanic or Latino origin.

The ancestry was 6.8% German, 4.1% Irish, 2.1% English, 2.0% Portuguese, 1.4% Italian, 1.3% French, 1.3% Sub-Saharan African, 1.0% Polish, 0.5% Norwegian, 0.4% West Indian, and 0.3% Scottish.

The median age was 32.7 years old. A total of 30.6% of the population were under 18, with 7.7% under 5. A total of 9.2% of the population were 65 or older, with 5.0% between the ages of 65 and 74, 3.2% between the ages of 75 and 84, and 0.9% 85 or older. The gender makeup was 50.5% female and 49.5% male.

The median household income was $116,128, with families having $121,606, married couples having $128,844, and non-families having $73,524. A total of 6.1% of the population were in poverty, with 8.9% of those under 18, 4.8% between the ages of 18 and 64, and 5.6% of people 65 or older being in poverty. The per capita income was $41,203.

History
In 1955 the Kapolei master plan was drafted and revised 3 different times beginning in 1974. In 1977 the new General Provision Plan adopted the Oʻahu General Plan which dubbed Kapolei "second urban center" (SUC) on the island of Oʻahu. In 1986 the ʻEwa Master Plan was revised to include the SUC and the initial residential construction in the Kapolei area began in the late 1980s with commercial developments springing up shortly thereafter. Nearly two decades later, in 2006 the Kapolei area had more than 800 companies, agencies, and organizations making up approximately 25,000 jobs. As of the 2010 census, the Kapolei CDP had a population of 15,186 people.

The original development objectives for the City of Kapolei were to include: an employment center, a new center for offices and businesses, a center for government offices, a city of people walking, biking, or bussing, the latest energy-efficient technologies such as water conservation and recycling, and the most efficient connectivity for commuting on Oʻahu. In essence a "smart city". The design plan for development ensures that the 7 themes of Kapolei remain the same throughout its construction. These include 1. Hawaiian Garden City 2. Healthy Living 3. Complete Community Services 4. Pedestrian-friendly 5. Past/Present/Future design architecture 6. Sustainability 7. Technology.

Kapolei is quickly becoming the second urban center of Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi's most densely populated island. Much of Oʻahu's future population growth is projected for the Kapolei area, ʻEwa Plain, and southern slopes of the island's central valley, between Waipahu near Pearl Harbor and Wahiawā near the island's center.

The U.S. postal code for Kapolei is 96707. In 2002, Pacific Business News reported that 96707 had the second highest median income on the island of Oʻahu, at $62,303. Sperlings's Best Places reports Kapolei's median income of $70,129, compared to the national average of $42,350. Nearly one household in five has income exceeding $100,000, with a home ownership rate of 70%.

Communities
Other communities in the Kapolei area are the census-designated places of Makakilo and Naval Air Station Barbers Point (now known as Kalaeloa), the industrial area known as Campbell Industrial Park with the state's second largest deepwater port, Barbers Point Harbor, and the resort and marina community of Ko Olina, which includes the Disney Aulani Resort and Ko Olina Golf Club.

Transportation
Ongoing road construction has not resolved continuing traffic problems. A Manawai Street-Kama‘aha Avenue extension was completed in August 2006 and helped to reduce congestion along Kamokila Boulevard and Farrington Highway. Kapolei Property Development began construction in January 2007 on a $2 million road to extend Kamokila Boulevard from Kapolei Parkway to Roosevelt Avenue. Kapolei Property Development recently contributed $6 million for a joint project with the State Department of Transportation for an additional freeway on-ramp.

Although state and county governments and some of Hawaiʻi's largest companies have significant workplaces in Kapolei, population growth has far out-paced local job creation. A majority of Kapolei adults work in Honolulu, congesting the main traffic artery, Interstate H-1. In December 2006, the Honolulu City Council approved the Honolulu Rail Transit Project (now known as Skyline), a fixed-guideway elevated rail system connecting Kapolei to Downtown Honolulu. In January 2007, Oʻahu residents saw an increase of 0.5 percent to the general excise tax to help cover the system's construction costs. The project broke ground in East Kapolei on February 22, 2011. Work on the foundations for the concrete pillars began shortly after in Waipahu; work to install the pillars started in East Kapolei in April 2012, and the first phase of the project started service to Aloha Stadium on June 30, 2023.

Main roads
Kapolei is located at the southern end of the slopes of the Waiʻanae mountain near the neighborhood of Makakilo with Fort Barrette Road, located along and named for historically important Fort Barrette, connecting Makakilo to Kapolei. It is located on the ʻEwa Plain approximately 25 mi from Honolulu. The Interstate H-1 freeway divides more recently developed Kapolei from Makakilo, and traveling eastward on H-1 connects to Waipahu. In the other direction, the freeway ends about 1 mi west of Kapolei, merging into Farrington Highway (State Route 93) to Kahe and then to Nānākuli on the Wai‘anae Coast. Traveling eastward on Farrington Highway connects to Honouliuli. Exit 1 on H-1 is Kalaeloa Boulevard, the entrance to Barbers Point and Campbell Industrial Park. Less than 1 mile beyond (west of) the merge of H-1 and Farrington Highway is an off-ramp and overcrossing to the West Oʻahu resort area of Ko Olina.

To the south, Renton Road connects Kapolei to Kalaeloa and, further east, to ʻEwa Villages.

Economy
Ka Makana Ali‘i, a mall that opened in October 2016, has 1.4 million square feet of retail space and more than a hundred stores. Macy's Department Store is an anchor for the mall.

Climate

 * Highest temperature recorded 96 °F in August 2016
 * Lowest temperature recorded 49 °F in March 2005
 * Average high temperature in July, 88 °F
 * Average low temperature in July, 69 °F
 * Average high temperature in December, 80 °F
 * Average low temperature in December, 60 °F
 * Average rainfall in July, 0 in
 * Average rainfall in December, 3.1 in

Government and infrastructure
Kapolei is officially governed by the government of Honolulu County. The county government covers the entire island of Oʻahu, with the county seat being at Honolulu Hale in Honolulu. The governmental body includes the Mayor of Honolulu County, the Honolulu City and County Council, and state representatives.

Kapolei Hale, built in 2001, serves as the civic center and main municipal building of the City of Kapolei. The building contains an office for the Mayor, as well as offices of various city and county government agencies and is the headquarters for the City and County of Honolulu Department of Parks and Recreation. However, the Permits Office for the Department of Parks and Recreation is located downtown Honolulu at the Frank F. Fasi Civic Center in the Frank F. Fasi Municipal Building at 650 South King Street.

Additionally, federal, several state, and county department offices have been relocated to the Kapolei area. In 2010 the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary Court relocated family court matters from cramped offices in downtown Honolulu to a newly constructed, technologically advanced building in Kapolei.

The Honolulu Police Department operates the Kapolei Regional Police Station for district 8 at 1100 Kamokila Boulevard.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Honolulu field office is in Kapolei at 91-1300 Enterprise Street. Opened in 2013, it is the first federal agency to be headquartered in Kapolei. This Honolulu field office has jurisdiction over Hawaiʻi, Guam, Saipan, and American Samoa with resident agencies in Maui, Kona, Guam, and Saipan. The previous site in downtown Honolulu was too small.

A coal power plant operated until 2022. A 585 MWh lithium iron phosphate battery opened in 2024.

Education
The Hawaiʻi Department of Education operates public schools in Hawaiʻi, including Kapolei. Public elementary schools in the Kapolei CDP include Kapolei Elementary School and Hoʻokele Elementary School, with one public middle school, Kapolei Middle School, and one public high school, Kapolei High School.

Island Pacific Academy (pre-K through 12) in Kapolei CDP, which opened as a private school in 2004, is an International Baccalaureate (IB) school offering IB classes to all grades. American Renaissance Academy (pre-K through 12) opened as a private school in 2007 in Kalaeloa, Naval Air Station Barbers Point.

Barbers Point Elementary School is in Kalaeloa CDP (formerly Barbers Point Housing CDP) but has a Kapolei address. Makakilo Elementary School and Mauka Lani Elementary School are in Makakilo CDP but have Kapolei addresses.

The University of Hawaiʻi – West Oʻahu relocated to Kapolei and opened its new campus in August 2012 at 91-1001 Farrington Highway. Hawaii Tokai International College relocated to Kapolei in April 2015. Wayland Baptist University is also located in Kapolei.

title: Kapolei, Hawaii


text:
Talk:Slavery in Canada

Modern Slavery?
Everything in the article ends with the banning of slavery in Canada, unfortunately that is not where slavery ended. Sexual slavery is a huge problem, especially amongst the native population. I'm a student and I am kind of busy at the moment but I could write up a small section on modern slavery in about a week from now if nobody with more experience is up to the task. Just csting this idea out there, it makes no sense to have a 'slavery in Canada' without even mentioning current forms of slavery. Seems revisionist or at least short sighted. Not Joey Clavette (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and created the section. It's admittedly a little shakey but I thought it was important to have one. I ask that anyone who finds a problem with it not remove it completely but fix what problems you see and I wouldn't mind being consulted about it and coming to conclusions through debate. Not Joey Clavette (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Modern, illegal forms of slavery are pretty different than the traditional legalized form of slavery that most readers come to an article like this to look for. In my opinion this article is about that traditional legalized, nationwide form.  It seems out of place to call out "sexual slavery" in the first paragraph of an article about slavery in Canada, when it is explicitly illegal in Canada and shares little in common with historical concepts of slavery based on ethnicity.  It's easy to identify those types of slavery because they happen to large swaths of a population almost universally, like blacks in the US or Jews in Egypt.  Women or men are not, in general, subject to sexual slavery in Canada. If you're going to add this topic out of a sense of social justice you might as well add a section on "economic slavery" for all the minimum-wage workers in Canada.  I respectfully submit that adding these topics are not relevant to this article, even if they have respectable social justice motives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.227.189 (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Cooper's Hanging of Angelique
Her analytical narrative is an interpretation of history, a list of probabilities calculated through an analysis of first person sources, and other then-contemporary sources. It is not fact, but an interpretation, a possibility. It can not be formatted as fact. I have altered the small article on this page giving Afua Cooper's views a more neutral tone. TheEndingDay (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Joe Caron

United Empire Loyalists
Did not some of the United Empire Loyalists being slaves to Canada with them? -- stewacide 06:27, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes. They brought black slaves along with them. -- Mathieugp 07:52, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wage Slavery in Canada Today
Shouldn't this article mention the wage slavery conditions prevalent in Canada today? Such as the countless ads, for example on Craigslist (anytown) Canada, calling for 'live-in caregivers' where pay is $8.00/hr and they charge you rent? Slavery is alive and well today, only difference is you are paid just enough to scrape by--or less. Fore example say you live in Vancouver, BC and you work at any minimum wage job--8.00/hr, which after taxes nets you $1,000/mo. Oh--by the way a studio flat here costs $1,000/mo. so hope you have a trust fund to draw upon if you are paid anywhere near minimum wage in BC. Mountains here are nice though! I'm sure they're trying to figure out a way to charge us all for looking at them...we should have to pay a corporation for this privilege, shouldn't we? Yes, most definitely! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.5.132 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While you may have a point to some degree, this is not a partisan communist website.

British aristocracy/Loyalist figures
have added two citation notes to the article. The first deals with the statement that members of the British aristocracy brought slaves to what is now Canada. Might it be possible to indicate who these aristocrats were? The second citation note concerns the figures on the number of slaves brought north during the American Revolution. I question the first number, that asociated with Nova Scotia, as it seems to reflect the number of freed slaves that settled in the colony. The other numbers also seem suspect. More to the point, the numbers simply don't match. The first paragraph in the "Under British rule" section indicates that loyalists brought approximately 2000 slaves to British North America, yet the second paragraph states that the British owned 1400 slaves. Victoriagirl 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * DIdn't the Haida and Tlingit practice what was essentially chattel slavery? The children of their slaves were automatically slaves too, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.138.204 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL.. my family has been here forever and slavery was not part of our system…
 * Only if you committed a crime would you have pay or service anther that’s why we did not have jails here…. We also had boarders marketed in the bush....for area law...we all knew each other... we also ran the biggest military here on the continent for eons... it’s the newcomers who would not abbey the law… That’s why slavery did not take here you would get in trouble with us…

 * its ok but slavery isnt

 * ok well kdikdikdi keldile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.224.31 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * When I looked into slavery, a year or so ago, I was surprised when I learned who some of the slave owners were.
 * I think the number of slave-owners in Upper Canada at least, was short enough we could list them.
 * Joseph Brant
 * Peter Russell
 * William Jarvis
 * Matthew Elliot
 * Russell, who was acting Governor for several years, when Simcoe returned to the UK due to illness, owned a slave mom and several of her slave children. He was unhappy with her, because she broke china, and ran away, but he wouldn't simply free her.  He tried to sell her, and couldn't find any buyers.  After he died his sister gave one of the daughters, Amy Pompador, to a cousin.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

February 2013
I moved this from the article page, as it seems to be more a point for discussion. I am not vouchsafing for the truth of any of this, but am simply moving and refactoring it.
 * "Black slaves lived in the British regions of Canada in the 17th and 18th centuries — 104 were listed in a 1767 census of Nova Scotia, but their numbers were small until the United Empire Loyalist influx after 1783. As white Loyalists fled the new American Republic, they took with them about 2000 black slaves". — The last sentence of this entry is inaccurate. The majority of the 2000 blacks were 'former' slaves who had been granted their freedom by the proclamation of John Murray, Lord Dunmore, on the 7th of November 1775. Dunmore was the last colonial governor of Virginia. Therefore these individuals came to Nova Scotia as Loyalists in their own right and not as the property of white Loyalists. User: Sjameswhiteland (talk}
 * 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding a section on Lower Canada (Quebec), and reference to Monk and court decisions there.
I'm adding a section as strangely this article neglects any mention of Lower Canada or Quebec (I also note it's a bit anachronistic to refer to Ontario here as it was, I believe, still known as Upper Canada when Simcoe governed. But this is just a start. Note it's been a while so help with formatting and citations, etc., welcome. I've put them in but probably not in the best format. Gregalton (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 * I inserted some text to clarify why slavery was 'innocuous' after Monk's decisions, that is, that he rendered it unenforceable in the province and made it a place to which slaves could flee. Gregalton (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Pre-confederation slavery
The lede is clear that this article covers slavery in the region that now forms Canada, not post-confederation slavery. This repeated edit is not constructive. We are not discussing slavery in Canada as a country, we are discussing the history of slavery in what is now Canada. It's irrelevant whether Canada existed as a country when the slavery happened or when the Treaty of Paris was signed. Meters (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
The lead makes it seem like slavery was alive and well in Canada until 1833 and fails to recognize the judicial decisions that brought it largely to an end in present-day Canada much earlier, thus making Canada a destination for escaped slaves after the Revolution and the War of 1812. This history parallels what was happening in England and Massachusetts. --Hantsheroes (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 * It's quite possible that the lead can be improved, but I don't believe that it makes it seem that slavery was alive and well until 1833 as you claim. It seems to me that the original "(There is often confusion over the date at which this occurred; Britain had abolished the slave trade in 1807, but did not abolish slavery itself until 1833, in an act of Parliament that came into effect on 1 August 1834.) Prior to this, however, courts had, to varying degrees, rendered slavery unenforceable" covers this and certainly more accurately than your first version: "Under the influence of the British Empire, judicial decision ended slavery in present-day Canada by the end of the 18th century. " This is simply not correct. I also question your unsourced addition that Canada as a whole was a destination for escaping slaves as early as the Revolution. This is not something that is mentioned in the article. And why do we need to mention Britain banning the slave trade in the lead? This is not particularly germane to this article. This did not eliminate slavery in Canada, and very few (if any) Canadian slaves were imported directly via the trans-Atlantic  slave trade, at least in Upper and Lower Canada. I don't know about the situation situation in the maritime colonies, but i suspect it was the same.
 * It's not for me to bring up each of the changes you made and argue against them. If you wish to make changes to the lead please propose them so that other editors may comment on them and reach consensus. Meters (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the greater confusion is not when the Abolition Act of 1833 happened, the confusion is over how slavery was virtually ended in the colonies by (British) Judges well in advance of this date. The history of what was happening in England in the last quarter of the 18h century is germane to changes that were happening in the British colonies (including Massachusetts) at the same time. I'm fine with the qualifier "varying degrees" in regard to the courts and appreciate how my earlier version "ended slavery" over-stated the case. Ontario and Nova Scotia were destinations during and after the American Revolution and War of 1812 for free Blacks. I don't know about Quebec.--Hantsheroes (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction
Slavery in Canada was practised by First Nations from earliest times and then under European colonization. People of African descent were forcibly brought as chattel slaves to New France, Acadia and the later British North America during the 17th century. Because early Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was minor, the history of slavery in Canada is often overshadowed by the more tumultuous slavery practised elsewhere in the Americas, particularly in the southern United States and colonial Caribbean. Those in Canada typically came from the American colonies, as no shiploads of human chattel went to Canada directly from Africa. The number of slaves in New France is reported to be in the hundreds. They were house servants and farm workers. There were no large plantations in Canada, and therefore no large slave work forces of the sort that existed in most European colonies in the southerly Americas, from Virginia to the West Indies to Brazil. There were slaves of African descent and others were Aboriginal (typically called panis, from the French term for Pawnee).

Under the influence of the British Empire, judicial decisions virtually ended slavery in present-day Canada early in the 19th century. In 1772, for example, Britain outlawed the slave trade in the British Isles followed by the Knight v. Wedderburn decision in Scotland in 1778. This decision, in turn, influenced the colonies of present-day Canada. The conditions were such in Upper Canada and Nova Scotia that American slaves made their way to freedom by escaping to present-day Canada during and after the American Revolution and the War of 1812. In Lower Canada after court decisions in the late 1790s, the "slave could not be compelled to serve longer than he would, and ... might leave his master at will." Britain was the first country in the world to abolish the slave trade (1807) and then abolish slavery itself with an act of Parliament (1833).--Hantsheroes (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Again, it's not for us to bring up each of your changes. If you want us to discuss your changes, please list each change so that each one can be discussed separately and accepted or not, rather than simply presenting us with a copy of your desired version of the lead. As it is, I don't agree with your wholesale change. I've already explained why some of the changes are not acceptable. I'll add a couple more:
 * Do you have any evidence that anyone considers Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade to have been major? As I have already said, as far as I know, it was virtually nonexistent. Why would we change "Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was minor compared to..." to "Because early Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade is sometimes considered to be minor"?
 * Why do you consider the English cases applicable only in the British Isles germane to Canadian slavery when Canadian slaves were the result of transportation from North American sources? The decisions you cite were not applicable in Canada. The Loyalist's rights to own slaves and to transport them to Canada from the US were encoded after the decisions you cite, and slavery continued to exist even in England lang after those cases. It wasn't until 18707 that England even banned the slave trade. let alone the owning of slaves.

 * The existing mention (not your doing) of the the Lower Canada case needs to be corrected. It explicitly did not deal with whether slavery was legal. and there is some extremely significant information missing. The Justice stated that captured slave should have been incarcerated in a house of detention rather than a jail, and that since there was no such house of detention in Montreal, the jailed slave would be released, as would any slaves in similar cases. Local merchants twice petitioned the Provincial Legislature to clarify what this ruling meant to slaves' and owners' rights, but to no avail. Meters (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that while the failed 1793 attempt to ban slavery in Upper Canada resulted in a law that no new slaves could be imported into Upper Canada (hence any escaped slave reaching Upper Canada was free) Lower Canada had no such ruling. Meters (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This statement is accurate and I put it back into the proposed introduction above: Because early Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade is sometimes considered to be minor, the history of slavery in Canada is often overshadowed by the more tumultuous slavery practised elsewhere in the Americas, particularly in the southern United States and colonial Caribbean.

The following statement is a problem: Slavery is "Canada's best kept secret, locked within the National closet". This statement seems to promote a conspiracy theory of a national cover up of slavery. The source lacks sources to support this argument. Such an argument negates that Canadian historians throughout the 19th and 20th century have documented the existence of slaves in Canada. If it was a secret, it certainly wasn't well kept. --Hantsheroes (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As you indicate, the English cases were only applicable to the British Isles, however, the influence of the British abolitionist movement was certainly affecting the colonies as reflected in the judiciary making decisions that line up with the case law that the building in England. Loyalist were not granted the right to own slaves in Nova Scotia either through the legislature or the judiciary. Were Loyalists granted the legal right to own slaves in Ontario?--Hantsheroes (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Please indent your talk page replies with colons.
 * Let's deal with one issue at a time. The change from "Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was minor compared to..." to "sometimes considered to be minor" is not acceptable. Yes it is true, just as saying that some ice is cold is true. It is classic WP:WEASEL. You are giving the impression that there are those that do not think that Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was minor, or even that most think that. Again, "Do you have any evidence that anyone considers Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade to have been major?" Meters (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree. "Sometimes" is not acceptable.  Someone else put the sentence with "sometimes" in the original. I had deleted the whole sentence. You re-inserted the text with  "sometimes" back into the article on your 18:17, 12 May 2019 edit.  I accidentally copied the whole of your text and put it in the proposed introduction above. I deleted the word "sometimes" from the above proposal.--Hantsheroes (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It's late here, so I'm going to look at this again tomorrow when I'm fresh, to ensure I don't mess anything else up. Meters (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Existing intro: "The latter was legal until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 meaning that "Slavery was the dominant condition of life for black people in [Canada] for well over 200 years".[1][2]

In Nova Scotia, most of the blacks were free after the American Revolution. Only about a third of those who came arrived as Loyalist slaves. Were most of the Blacks in Ontario slaves after the revolution?--Hantsheroes (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Were there slaves in 1833?
"These developments virtually ended slavery in British North America by 1820. No more than a handful of bondsmen could have remained when slavery formally ended throughout the empire with the implementation of the British Emancipation Act on 1 August 1834." Seymour Drescher and Stanley L. Engerman, A Historical Guide to World Slavery (1998) p 107. More precise is: "''Probably the last slaves to become free were two who are mentioned by the late Sir Adam Wilson, Chief Justice successively of the Courts of Common Pleas and Queen's Bench at Toronto. These were "two young slaves, Hank and Sukey whom he met at the residence of Mrs. O'Beilly, mother of the venerable Miles O'Beilly, Q. C, in Halton County about 1830. They took freedom under the Act of 1833 and were perhaps the last slaves in the province."''  Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, many slaves entered into fixed terms of servitude. The failure of the Lower Canada Legislature to clarify the rights of slaves and owners after two early 1800's rulings freeing captured Montreal slaves from jail on technical grounds (jail rather than house of correction) was virtually the end of public records on slavery there. There were no more advertisements for slave sales or asking for the return of escaped slaves, and almost no more known private sales. The only known sales after that time were to people who appeared likely to be removing the slave from the jurisdiction (a sailor and fur traders). Meters (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with the "Under French rule" section
The first sentence of this section currently reads "In 1628 the first recorded black slave in Canada was brought by a British convoy to New France." I worked on some related articles, about a year ago, and my recollection of the references I used then was that this section, this sentence in particular, is that this section is quite misleading.

My recollection is that the Native American slaves, almost all captured and sold by rival Native American Nations, dwarfed the small number of slaves of African descent - in New France.

I think the lead paragraph of this section should make this point. Geo Swan (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Supposed confusion over the use of "slavery in Canada" in this article
A named user and an IP have repeatedly made the unsourced claim that there is confusion over the use of the term "slavery in Canada" since Canada was not known by that name until 1867. Meters (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is clear that this covers the pre European, French, British, and Canadian eras. If the wording needs to be tweaked, that's fine, but let's discuss it and reach a consensus on what the wording should be rather than have one editor ( assuming the named editor and the IP are the same user) push through this change to the long-standing content. Meters (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And now the named user is claiming that Rupert's Land is a synonym for Canada prior to Confederation . No. Rupert's Land was the drainage basin of Hudson's Bay. There was no such thing as Rupert's Land during the pre-European or French eras, and much of Eastern Canada was never part of Rupert's Land. Meters (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinged the Canada project for input on how to clarify the issue. Meters (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Slavery was abolished in the British Empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which was 34 years before Confederation. So any use of the term "slavery in Canada" must refer to some combination of provinces pre-Confederation. And yet the term "slavery in Canada" has been used in reliable sources as far back as the 1920s (see, ). It continues to be used in modern scholarship (, . The use of the term in this article is entirely appropriate and 's disruptive attempt to employ different terminology is not supported by the sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is the title is misleading and requires clarification, it is not clear to readers that Canada was created a half century after these measures. Would you say “cannibalism in Puerto Rico” without qualifying that it happened before Puerto Rico existed? Same with “human sacrifice in Chile”. You must qualify these so readers don’t believe the self governing country you are referring to enacted these. If you want to refer to British soldiers in Canada before 1876, you would still call them British soldiers, as they would call themselves. My issue is the clearly misleading title that is accompanied by no qualifiers or context and the resulting confusion in the remainder of the document. It was not Canadian soldiers who burnt the White House down, nor was it Canadian men and women who participated in slavery, as is obvious by further reading of the article, so why say so? Canada has a very easily defined start date, let’s recognize that. Theponderinggiant (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, we follow reliable sources. Reliable sources use "slavery in Canada". So do we. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The argument over “was there slavery in Canada” is a little ridiculous because it’s fully on how you define Canada. In that domain it is quite clear when Canada began. Using your doltish definition the American revolution would be Americans vs British, while holding the word revolution in its title, and being impossible to revolt against anyone except your own country, it’s quite clear that the revolution is British citizens vs British citizens, the term American may have been used constantly at the time, but there was not a single American citizen or American law. Because Canada peacefully separated are we different somehow? The line that people crossed between Canadian/British citizen could happen in 100 different places by your definition and by the articles definition, yet only one date is actually agreed upon by historians. Your choice, gleefully mischaracterize it if you wish, but you are only doing harm to those who wish to learn properly and concisely. Theponderinggiant (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

So if there was slavery in Canada… why did it stop when the British ended slavery…:/ I understand the term “slavery in Canada is catchy and used by many news headlines you refer to as reliable sources, yet the timeline simply does not reconcile. Was there “human sacrifice in Chile”? You see, it does not matter how many sources use that title if it is verified, in its own darn article, to be incorrect/mischaracterizing. Theponderinggiant (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My "doltish definition" has the advantage of appearing in reliable sources. I'm not going to get into a metaphysical debate on how to "define Canada"; that would be original research, which is not what we do here. I would suggest starting a blog if you'd like to advance your theories about Canadian history without the use of reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Humanrights.ca refers to slavery in Canada as happening in “what is now Canada.” So indeed, quite doltish. Obviously you misunderstand, I’m not arguing for how to “define Canada”, it’s definition is clear and in opposition to your own, which positions Canada as a colony of French and British settlers governed by the French and British. Theponderinggiant (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly which reliable sources position Canada as an entity existing before 1867, when Canada was conceived. Did you exist before you were born? This is the argument you perpetuate, quite unbecoming of someone who also shares pondering in the name. Theponderinggiant (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And as I said The article is clear that this covers the pre European, French, British, and Canadian eras. The term Canada was in use before Confederation, and If we can reach a consensus on how to clarify things, great, but Theponderinggiant you don't get to arbitrarily decide that long-standing version must be changed to what you want, and until we reach a consensus it should stay in the status quo. Meters (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources I listed above, as well as many others that a simple Google search will show, use the phrase "slavery in Canada" to refer to slavery in the area of North America north of the United States. I take it that you would like to change this article's title and style to reflect the term Slavery in what is now Canada. Correct? If so, please seek WP:CONSENSUS for this change and find reliable sources to indicate that this is an accepted term, as opposed to WP:EDITWARring with others. Also, please WP:INDENT your responses in a single thread. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 * The term "Canada" long predates the current country of Canada, formed in 1867. The use of the term is therefore accurate when describing events in central Canada (Ontario and Quebec).  There may be an issue about using it relation to the Maritimes, but there is some indication that "Canada" became a general term for the entire area, prior to Confederation.
 * * When Cartier was exploring the area in the 16th century, he referred to the area under Donnacona's control, present-day Quebec city, as "Canada". He also referred to the St Lawrence as the "River of Canada":  Canadian Encyclopedia: Canada
 * * "Canada" was the term used by the French government to refer to the area claimed along the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes and later the Ohio country, as distguished from other areas of New France, such as Acadie and Louisiana: [|Canada (Nouvelle France)]
 * * the term "Canada" had some proverbial usages in European French in the 17th and 18th centuries: "false as a Canadian diamond" was something that was worthless, while Voltaire repeatedly used variants on the phrase that Canada was a few acres of snow:  "Vous savez que ces deux nations sont en guerre pour quelques arpents de neige vers le Canada,"(Candide, 1758)
 * * Article IV of the Treaty of Paris, 1763, provides that the King of France cedes Canada to the King of Great Britain:
 * IV. His Most Christian Majesty renounces all pretensions which he has heretofore formed or might have formed to Nova Scotia or Acadia in all its parts, and guaranties the whole of it, and with all its dependencies, to the King of Great Britain: Moreover, his Most Christian Majesty cedes and guaranties to his said Britannick Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the gulph and river of St. Lawrence,...
 * * From 1763 to 1791, Britain used the term "Quebec" to refer to the territory formerly known by the French as Canada, but there was still common usage of "Canada" during that period to refer to that territory. See for example the 1777 US Articles of Confederation:
 * "Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States."
 * * In 1791, the British government split the old Province of Quebec into Lower Canada and Upper Canada. They were collectively referred to as "the Canadas".
 * * In 1841, the British reunited the two provinces into the Province of Canada, which was sometimes referred to as "Canada", or "the United Canadas".
 * * In 1867, the new country of Canada was created, including what is now Ontario and Quebec, but also the two Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
 * I suppose an argument could be made that the Maritimes prior to 1867 shouldn't be included in "Canada", but I think that part of the discussion of using "Canada" for the new country was that it had been acquiring a general meaning of all the British provinces in eastern North America, and therefore was an acceptable name for the new country. I'll see if I can find any cites for that.  Alternatively, a general name used to describe regions does not always necessarily align with political boundaries, as the usage of "America" to refer to the United States indicates.  Usage for general purposes can be broader than political definitions, and back-using "Canada" to include the Maritimes doesn't strike me as an unreasonable usage.  It tells the reader that the article is about the area now known as Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 * In my opinion there's no use in being too caught up in a strict interpretation of what "Canada" means in an encyclopedic history article. We have seen this come up with other history articles too where the current day name of the country stands in for earlier entities which may have been named differently at the time, simply because it is the most coherent for modern audiences to understand in a lot of cases, and can be clarified in the text. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Indeed. I would add that this approach seems appropriate when a topic spans multiple regimes or names of a country, and no single historical territory or state could accurately contain the (potential) range of the topic. So it's not a matter of imprecision but of compromise of using a known modern shorthand to look back across several regimes. Dan Carkner (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Slavery in Canada


text:
DVR

DVR can refer to:
 * Dalnevostochnaya Respublika, a nominally independent state that existed from April 1920 to November 1922 in the easternmost part of the Russian Far East
 * Data validation and reconciliation
 * Derwent Valley Railway (disambiguation)
 * Devco Railway
 * Differential Voting Right, a kind of equity share
 * Digital video recorder
 * Discrete valuation ring
 * Discrete variable representation
 * Distance-vector routing
 * Direct volume rendering
 * Dynamic voltage restoration
 * DVR College of Engineering and Technology
 * Van Riebeeck Decoration (DVR), a South African military award

title: DVR


text:
Barry Marshall

Barry James Marshall  (born 30 September 1951) is an Australian physician, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine, Professor of Clinical Microbiology and Co-Director of the Marshall Centre at the University of Western Australia. Marshall and Robin Warren showed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) plays a major role in causing many peptic ulcers, challenging decades of medical doctrine holding that ulcers were caused primarily by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid. This discovery has allowed for a breakthrough in understanding a causative link between Helicobacter pylori infection and stomach cancer.

Early life and education
Marshall was born in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia and lived in Kalgoorlie and Carnarvon until moving to Perth at the age of eight. His father held various jobs, and his mother was a nurse. He is the eldest of four siblings. He attended Marist College, Churchlands for his secondary education and the University of Western Australia School of Medicine, where he received a Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) in 1974. He married his wife Adrienne in 1972 and has four children, a son and three daughters.

Career and research
In 1979, Marshall was appointed Registrar in Medicine at the Royal Perth Hospital. He met Dr. Robin Warren, a pathologist interested in gastritis, during internal medicine fellowship training at Royal Perth Hospital in 1981. Together, they both studied the presence of spiral bacteria in association with gastritis. In 1982, they performed the initial culture of H. pylori and developed their hypothesis on the bacterial cause of peptic ulcers and gastric cancer. It has been claimed that the H. pylori theory was ridiculed by established scientists and doctors, who did not believe that any bacteria could live in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall was quoted as saying in 1998 that "everyone was against me, but I knew I was right." On the other hand, it has also been argued that medical researchers showed a proper degree of scientific scepticism until the H. pylori hypothesis could be supported by evidence.

In 1982 Marshall and Warren obtained funding for one year of research. The first 30 out of 100 samples showed no support for their hypothesis. However, it was discovered that the lab technicians had been throwing out the cultures after two days. This was standard practice for throat swabs where other organisms in the mouth rendered cultures unusable after two days. Due to other hospital work, the lab technicians did not have time to immediately throw out the 31st test on the second day, and so it stayed from Thursday through to the following Monday. In that sample, they discovered the presence of H. pylori. They later found out that H. pylori grows more slowly than the conventional two days required by other mucosal bacteria, and that stomach cultures were not contaminated by other organisms.

In 1983 they submitted their findings thus far to the Gastroenterological Society of Australia, but the reviewers turned their paper down, rating it in the bottom 10% of those they received that year.

After failed attempts to infect piglets in 1984, Sam Wang reported that Marshall, after having a baseline endoscopy done, drank a broth containing cultured H. pylori, expecting to develop, perhaps years later, an ulcer. He was surprised when, only three days later, he developed vague nausea and halitosis, due to the achlorhydria. There was no acid to kill bacteria in the stomach and their waste products manifested as bad breath, noticed by his wife. On days 5–8, he developed achlorhydric (no acid) vomiting. On day eight, he had a repeat endoscopy, which showed massive inflammation (gastritis), and a biopsy from which H. pylori was cultured, showing it had colonised his stomach. On the fourteenth day after ingestion, a third endoscopy was done, and Marshall began to take antibiotics. Marshall did not develop antibodies to H. pylori, suggesting that innate immunity can sometimes eradicate acute H. pylori infection. Marshall's illness and recovery, based on a culture of organisms extracted from a patient, fulfilled Koch's postulates for H. pylori and gastritis, but not for peptic ulcers. This experiment was published in 1985 in the Medical Journal of Australia and is among the most cited articles from the journal.

After his work at Fremantle Hospital, Marshall did research at Royal Perth Hospital (1985–86) and at the University of Virginia, USA (1986–present), before returning to Australia while remaining on the faculty of the University of Virginia. He held a Burnet Fellowship at the University of Western Australia (UWA) from 1998 to 2003. Marshall continues research related to H. pylori and runs the H. pylori Research Laboratory at UWA.

In 2007, Marshall was appointed Co-Director of The Marshall Centre for Infectious Diseases Research and Training, founded in his honour. In addition to Helicobacter pylori research, the Centre conducted varied research into infectious disease identification and surveillance, diagnostics and drug design, and transformative discovery. His research group expanded to embrace new technologies, including Next-Generation Sequencing and genomic analysis. Marshall also accepted a part-time appointment at the Pennsylvania State University that same year. He established the Noisy Guts Project in 2017 – a research team dedicated to investigating new diagnostics and treatments for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. This resulted in a spin-out company Noisy Guts Pty Ltd which develops functional food products. In August 2020, Marshall, along with Simon J. Thorpe, accepted a position at the scientific advisory board of Brainchip INC, a computer chip  company.

Awards and honours
In 2005, the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Marshall and Robin Warren, his long-time collaborator, "for their discovery of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease".

Marshall also received the Warren Alpert Prize in 1994; the Australian Medical Association Award and the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research in 1995; the Gairdner Foundation International Award in 1996; the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize in 1997; the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement, the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Medicine, the Florey Medal, and the Buchanan Medal of the Royal Society in 1998.

He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1999. His certificate of election to the Royal Society reads:

"Barry Marshall, together with Robin Warren, discovered spiral bacteria in the stomachs of almost all patients with active chronic gastritis, or duodenal or gastric ulcers, and proposed that the bacteria were an important factor in the aetiology of these diseases. In 1985, Marshall showed by self-administration that this bacterium, now called Helicobacter pylori, causes acute gastritis and suggested that chronic colonisation directly leads to peptic ulceration. These results were a major challenge to the prevailing view that gastric disorders had a physiological basis, rather than being infectious diseases. Marshall showed that antibiotic and bismuth salt regimens that killed H. pylori resulted in the cure of duodenal ulcers. The view that gastric disorders are infectious diseases is now firmly established and there is increasing evidence for a role of H. pylori infection in gastric cancers. The work of Marshall has produced one of the most radical and important changes in medical perception in the last 50 years. Barry Marshall was awarded the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Science in 1995 and the Buchanan Medal in 1998."

Marshall was awarded the Benjamin Franklin Medal for Life Sciences in 1999; the Keio Medical Science Prize in 2002; and the Australian Centenary Medal and Macfarlane Burnet Medal and Lecture in 2003.

Marshall was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2007. He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Science degree by the University of Oxford in 2009.

Marshall was elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences (FAHMS) in 2015.

Marshall was awarded the honour of Western Australian of the Year in 2006.

Marshall was awarded The Companion in the General Division of the Order of Australia (AC) in 2007.

Marshall was awarded The University of Oxford honorary Doctor of Science degree in 2009.

Marshall is the Ambassador for Life Sciences for Western Australia.

title: Barry Marshall