text:
Talk:List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada

external link
this link should be added, as it talks bout annexing Alaska to Canada

http://groups.myspace.com/AMAcanada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.19.200 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 * LOL - the state taht gave us Frank Murkowski and Sarah Palin wants to join Soviet Canuckistan??Skookum1 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. Alaska is more Canadian than any other American state and has been claimed as the "lost province", which I completely agree with. Look at other postings elsewhere on the internet about this proposal..... Black Tusk (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenland
what do I hav to do to add Greenland on this article, and make it stick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.19.200 (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Show some actual sources rather than random speculation. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok I will I hav already formed a group on myspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Greenland - The lagest island in the world, a myspace group avocates the annexsation of Greenland by Canada. While Greenland is seeking more indepedence from Denmark, Canada mite lay cliam to Greenland in other to prevent the European Union, which is pressuring its return snice the island left in 1985, to making a cliam on Canada's Northwest passage waterway. As with Quebec, Greenland being a nation/disirct soceity, would be given greator autonomy and its natives granted tribe sovereity. Like Alaska however, no formal party or movement exist, or any political prty has annexsation as a goal, as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * http://groups.myspace.com/AMGcanada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * A three person myspace page is not evidence of widespread discussion(let alone support) for such a union. I personally would support such a union if it were feasible but alas it does not seem like Denmark will be letting the island go any time soon. --Wilson (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What about other wikipedia like sites, like futurepedia?--74.237.54.62 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

the next time someone elimanates my greenland post, i will erased the whole artcile, i hav provided good evidence and sinarios to back up my cliam, so fuck off and leave it alone.

 * Greenland - The lagest island in the world, many canadians and online groups avocate the annexsation of Greenland by Canada. While Greenland is seeking more indepedence from Denmark, Canada mite lay cliam to Greenland in other to prevent the European Union, which is pressuring Greenland to return to the union snice the island's autonomous goverment left in 1985, to making a cliam on Canada's Northwest passage waterway. As with Quebec, Greenland being a nation/disirct soceity, would be given greator autonomy and its natives granted tribe sovereity. Like Alaska however, no formal party or movement exist, or any political prty has annexsation as a goal, as of yet.
 * Please read your user talk page. Continued personal attacks and edit warring will get you banned.--Jsorens (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

 * here some more groups that want greenland to join Canada, numbering over a hundred people. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=3492&post=32433&uid=5778980757#/group.php?gid=5778980757 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5527014833 http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=6568&post=32144&uid=2334935298#/group.php?gid=2334935298 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Those all look like joke groups to me. Any actual Greenlanders proposing this?--Jsorens (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * then why is this in the canadian secessionist page?

 * Kingdom of L'Anse-Saint-Jean A millennial tourist-attracting project involved the town of L'Anse-Saint-Jean, Quebec, "declaring" itself an independent monarchy. The project, which enjoyed a certain amount of media coverage, was cheerfully admitted to be tongue-in-cheek.

 * I am williy to accept Greenland being put on the page with a simular discribsion as long as its there.

 * I also think its worth noting that I did post bout Greenland going for indepdence, hence giving the advarage greenlander opinion on joining either Canada or remaing in Denmark, and then I stated bout how the EU wants them back (possibly as a separate member state) and why Canada would push to hav Greenland annexed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 * That entry might be questionable, but even so, there's a difference between a notable joke and a non-notable joke.--Jsorens (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 * C'mon Jsorens, I'm begging you, led me post something bout Greenland, whats the harm, really?--74.237.54.62 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ans what do you call this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island --74.237.54.62 (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Greenland moving into a phase of self-governance. Greenland may be something to watch in the next few months to see if they have any Interest in joining another country or if they want to remain independent. New York Times Fondly, Greenland Loosens Danish Rule 22 June 2009 CaribDigita (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It's worth keeping an eye on, buleave Denmark and then join Canada - and full independence for Greenland is likely still decades away. t I have to admit to being fairly sceptical that Greenland would Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Current or former British territories
that article it currently out of order, shouldnt it be chonological order? like oldest to most recent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.19.200 (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs linking to some general contexts. And there must be a more useful title for this authentic phenomenon... a variant on Devolution, which article is currently much too narrowly Anglocentric, perhaps? From my doubtless parochial but urban-centered POV all creationism seems rather provincial... --Wetman 21:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Being a resident of Vancouver Island, i've heared talk of V.I seperating from the mainland

Thank you for allowing Alaska on the list! Kanga-Kucha.

"Alaska - Some Canadians and Alaskans have discussed the possibility of the state of Alaska seceding from the United States and joining Canada under an autonomous plan with a U.S. sphere of influence. This is comparable to what some Quebec separatists have advocated for in the past (sovereignty-association). The issue has been discussed on various forums, such as the Alaska Independence Party forum, and has its own MySpace group, which claims Alaska as the "lost province". However the movement is not a formal movement nor is it a political party. Therefore there is little chance of Alaska joining Canada in the near future."

Never heard talk of Nunatsiavut separating from Labrador/NL.

Need way more referencing in this article... hard to tell the wheat from the chaff. What proposals are serious, and which are idle chatter that aren't worth mentioning? How far have they gotten?

GOD DAMNMIT, STOP ERASING MY THING ON GREENLAND, ITS THE REAL DEAL, YOU FUCKING IDOITS!!!!

I also heard of greenland joining canada! (although it´s very unrealistic! )

 * unrealistic and under the wrong heading(Current or former British territories). What the issue is not the sentiment but how widespread it is. Anyone can come up with an idea like this. I may have an idea for forming a Somali empire out of the wreckage of the somalian state, doesn't mean I get to add it to the article. two guidelines 1.is there one,even one, website supporting this(myspace does not count). 2. have officials discussed the idea openly(by official I mean political leader, by openly I don't mean over a beer with friends). --Wilson (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actoually, there are many reasons for Greenland to be considered as a new province. They're a lot closer to us then Europe, in both culture and distance. Several Greenlanders want Greenland to leave the Danish Kingdom, and it's unlikely that Greenland could survive as a nation by itself. Also, Denmark is using Greenland as a claim-by-proximity to use the Northwest Passage, which are clearly Canadian Internal Waters. There's already a micro-conflict between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island, All we need is a spark and there could be a war. -DS

C'mon Jsorens, I'm begging you, led me post something bout Greenland, whats the harm, really?--74.237.54.62 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.100.187 (talk)

First off, the inability of a state to survive on its own does not stop people from trying(Ossetia-does not exactly have a lot going for it). Also, how they use Greenland for political gain is not the issue here. Wikipedia does not Advocate, it Records. If there is a reputable site showing people(by which I mean groups) want to join Canada, post it here, it will help your arguement greatly. Furthermore don't rush off volenteering the Canadian army for a war as 1.Our army is not equipt to fight one with Denmark and 2. NATO is a defensive alliance that to my knowledge Denmark is a part of. Also, the part about similiar in culture? please give an example. --Wilson (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My friend was refering to how the eskimo (pardon the phase) curtue in Canada and Greenland a very simular than in europe (which their are no eskimos except in Russia.)

and who said anything bout fighting a war? we could just buy it from the Danish like the USA tried to do.--66.240.108.182 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What you say about culture is true but the majority culture of Canada and Russia is European. Furthermore, having looked at several news releases from Greenland they appear more interested in a nation of their own then joining Canada(which did not appear to be mentioned). Racial nationalism does not bode well for greenland wishing to join Canada(see Quebec). As for the part about fighting a war, your friend brought it up when he mentioned the trouble over Hans Island I mearly pointed out that war would not go well for Canada. What the USA does is not a valid example as 1.they did not succeed and 2. no territory has been bought or sold in the last 100 years. Popular soverignty and self determination make such deals highly controversial. My position on this is the same as before, show me there is a movement(political preferably) advocating this in either country and I may support it.--Wilson (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson(cc) (talk • contribs) --Wilson (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on one for Canada, although if Greenland decides on indepedence I am fine with that though I will be disapointed, but I do believe that Canada should pursure it if the EU is looking to readd greenland as part of it's every growing super union.

So far as others are consenced, all I have seen is thouch and cheek groups on facebook, groups I think that should be inculded on this page under the title like that in the candian secession page. I think this is a great compromise.

if I need to make a real website in order to get on this page, I would love some help, because I have no idea on how to make one.--74.237.54.62 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There was also a news item in the Canadian press in the last few months that Canada should approach Iceland due to the financial trouble it was having. I dont recall which publication it was though. CaribDigita (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there any measion of annexing Greenland? --74.237.54.62 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 * No never heard of it. The dialogue on here is the first time I've heard of it actually.  Ah-ha.  It was the National Post...   and Toronto Star  -- CaribDigita (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

that last article hints at canada taking greenland, and the hans island case, manifies destiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The problem is I'm not sure a letter to a newspaper qualifies as a WP:Reliable Source. Greenland's joining Canada doesn't appear to have been proposed or endorsed by any political body in either Canada or Greenland. Similarly with Iceland - unless it has been demonstrated to have been seriously on the political agenda in either state it probably shouldn't be included here. Otherwise it just detracts from the reliability of this article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

and what about the others? can you prove Alaska? Vermount? Bermuda? you cant so why should greenland be singled out? Wikipedia used to be so good before the red tape bullshit, it sucks now.--74.237.54.62 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The Greenland thing could be controversial, the people of Greenland might be offended by the suggestion for all we know. If a reliable source can be provided it could stay, otherwise it doesn't belong here. To be honest most of this page is unsourced and could do with trimming down. All these fringe theories need to be removed. I'm not sure that would make it suck, it would mean you could trust wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Yo User:74.237.54.62 has a point. I checked the links for Alaska,Vermount,Maine and Bermuda and found that they are indeed 1) horribly unreliable sources 2) and/or not sourced other then wikipedia. It would appear that we have a problem, if we keep the current ones there they need to have a more authoritative set of sources or Greenland would have to be included in all fairness. This stems me thinks from a lack of criteria for what should be included and how much backing they need(unprofessional advocacy page? facebook? political blog? head of state?). Yup,if sources cannot be found it should be trimmed. As an aside, whether Greenland would be offended or not is beside the point.--Wilson (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * With regard to Greenland - I'm not sure that the others being not properly sourced is a justification for adding Greenland - it is a justification for removing the others. A lot of these appear made up and rather fanciful what if situations. When I spoke about it being offensive to Greenlanders, I meant that unsourced material that is potentially offensive needs to be sourced or removed - so it does have a bearing. If reliable sources can be found that support this then it should be added - otherwise it doesn't belong here. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm in complete agreement Greenland cannot be included given the current amount of citation it has(none) and others could be removed for the same reason(I never advocated its inclusion based on the others lack of evidence merely tried to point out the articals level of mediocrity). A major problem I see with this artical is alot of off the cuff remarks by groups angry over one issue or another being taken way out of context, seriously Vermont ain't going maple just yet, and it could be very difficult to find print sources for those but it could be argued those don't belong here anyways. Guess we got some editing ahead of us. On the greenland issue my opinion is the same if theres no reliable source(s) it doesn't get in but if there is I don't care how offended greenlanders would be, it would get included(not that I see the idea of Greenland joining Canada in any way offensive,then again I am a nationalist...). --Wilson (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

here is a reason to add it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_and_the_European_Union--74.237.54.62 (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Why is that a reason? It doesn't mention Canada in the article or any of the sources. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

because we will not let it be annexed to the eu w/o a fight.--74.237.54.62 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * A couple of points. Firstly the EU isn't a country, it can't annexe territories. It is a supernational group of nation states which co-operate on a number of issues. Greenland already belongs to one of those member states (Denmark) so it wouldn't be annexing.

 * Secondly, wikipedia is an encyopedia. It isn't a discussion page to include fringe views. To be included this needs two reliable sources. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

how bout this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_self-government_referendum,_2008#Background --24.99.224.84 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Other wikipedia articles aren't used as sources, particularly as you had added Canada to it a minute before. The problem still stands - there are no WP:RS supporting this. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah I added that, cuz what else could they be talking about? --130.218.71.195 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 * See the policy on Original Research. I know you really keen to have this included, but it can't go in without good sources supporting it. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

what if I make my own website, would that be legit enough? --74.237.54.62 (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Caribbean entries
For the record the following book is the source for the information below.
 * Carmichael, Dr. Trevor A. 2001. Passport to the Heart: Reflections on Canada Caribbean Relations. Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston 6, Jamaica. ISBN 976-637-028-1 The book's Forward passage, synopsis

The various islands are covered in that book as follows. CaribDigita 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jamaica(Pgs.3-5),
 * Barbados(Pgs.5-6),
 * Leeward Islands(Pg.6),
 * Bahamas(Pgs.6-7),
 * Belize(Pg.10),
 * Bermuda(Pg.10) and
 * W.I. Federation(Pgs.9-15) information within this article is from there.
 * Also the 1950's proposal to merge BWIA, Air Jamaica, & Liat (Caribbean airlines) with Air Canada was on (Pgs.30-54)
 * Info contained in this wiki article under the current Ref. #4 are also- backed by this same-book by Dr. Trevor A. Carmichael on page 7.

Acadia
at various times, their have been talk bout New Brunswick diving into two new provinces, one being Acadia, another being either retaining the name New Brunswick or being renamed something else. I dont hav any info on it yet, but I remember seeing it from somewhere, so I'll look for a link in addision to my never ending mission of getting Greenland on this page.--130.218.71.195 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch to the person that put Acadia back on the list! :)--66.82.9.15 (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ontario and Northwestern Ontario
twice the idea of the part of north Ontario is mentioned to want to join Manitoba, I don't think we need to mention this twice (especially since I cant get Greenland mentioned once, lol, j/k), and it should be mentioned once in other area or the other.--130.218.71.195 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the mentions are two distinct things. One proposal would create a separate province of Northern Ontario, and the other would see one region of Ontario transferred to another province that already exists. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Manitoba?Skookum1 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting item re Yukon "annexation" in 1937
Have no idea what befell this proposal, which the lede of the T. D. Patullo article in the NYT about this starts off with as if a done deal. I found this by accident looking for something else in the NYT's archives; a further web search shows it has something to do with the Manitoba (?) Schools Act, somehow (political bartering perhaps), but everything's in JSTOR or other member/pay-only sites. This would be something like the fourth (of six or seven) attempts/threats by BC to annex the Yukon...beginning with Governor Douglas' original one (he also wanted what's not Alberta to be part of BC). The 60th Parallel was a compromise position; the old Stikine Territory went to the 62nd; the kibosh about that border still entails legal paperwork/argument consequences for land claims in the southern Yukon. Yukoners have always, mostly, resisted BC's attempts to unify transmontane Canada, maybe that's what stopped things in 1937; both WAC Bennett and Dave Barrett had similar intentions and related actions, though WAC was most vocal about it (in re threatening go quit Canada over t he Columbia River negotiations and to take Yukon in doing so....); I'll link this to the Talk:Thomas Dufferin Pattullo talkpage, I guess....also on Talk:Aspirant sovereign states. The latter because from Douglas on, there have always been those proposing a self-governing - and larger - BC....all this far from Pattullo but it will be interesting to see what turns up about this, what he'd proposed, what deal was inked, why it went down....Skookum1 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Postscript: I expect the off and on sentiments for the East Kootenay and/or Peace River to join Alberta is already in the article; it should be fairly citable via local press archives, if on-line that is. And I know it's original research to make a what-if map, showing Bennett's and Douglas' any others' plans, and including the BC position on the Panhandle (see new map on Alaska boundary dispute; similarly the Albertan counter-position/aggrandizement could be shown as an overlap, with shaded areas around a solid-colour BC which add up show its potential maximum extent (if it had ever gotten its way ;-)).  Maps would also be helpful to show re-arranged provinces....proper maps of Nisga'a settlement lands are needed...but then so would be local maps of municipal boundary-shapes, rather than just hte location maps.... what partly gave me this idea is the animated GIF maps of territorial changes in the US and Canada that are kicking around...Somewhere out there, also, in US histories and maybe on some state history pages, old northward boundaries claimed by Montana and Idaho, with the area north of Washington to be a state that was mumbled about as the State of Franklin (though that link refers to somewhere else, and there were one or two other names for such a state; this was long after the 54-40 settlement in 1846, more like during hte mining and railway boom; and a big reason the southern mainline of the CPR was built through there; to secure both economic and military control of the region, a core lement in the regional industrial complex known as the Inland Empire (then including the West Kootenay and Boundary), so it wouldn't become American and was in fact part of the industrial build-up associated with the S-A War; such fears continued in BC right into the start of the 1900s because of the Hawaiian coup and the Phillippines et al, but it was also because the ideas were still being loudly trumpeted by Washington newspapers (I'll see what I can find, there's lots on line)).  So a section and/ormap showing the proposed boundaries (which Il'l see if I can find cites for somewhere) similarly something on the addition of the northwest to - Manitoba? - which was, um, pretty much Riel's concept of Nord-Ouest -  though his was for a province/colony/? stretching from Nipigon/the Lakehead to the Rockies, not just to Brandon/Portage la Prairie (another speculation, but it would seem likely that Gov Douglas, if faced with a suddenly independent Nord-Ouest, or separate province or whatever - would have, perhaps, some influence within the fur trade community and work out a deal to get at least the Foothills, or the line of the Coteau; I'm not sure of his intended eastward boundary, or if it included the Mackenzie (might have been current AB-SK/NT-NU boundary longitude)....all interesting huh?Skookum1 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-ups: "State of Franklin in Pacific Northwest (proposed)" and "BC if annexed and made a state - I'm uncertain which of the two names it was.Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

POV
This article does not meet the POV standards. Disputed/Unreferenced POV statements should be deleted. Po' buster (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific?--Jsorens (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A few POV examples of many in the article.

The article is filled with them. Po' buster (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * English Quebec - Around the time of the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty, a self-named 'partition' movement flourished, advocating the separation of certain areas of Quebec, particularly the English-speaking areas such as Montreal's West Island,(just the west island?) in the event of Quebec separation, with such areas remaining part of Canada. This movement is no longer active (how do you know it's not still active ?)
 * Alaska - Some Canadians (who, when ?) and Alaskans have discussed (how?)the possibility of the state of Alaska seceding from the United States and joining Canada under an autonomy plan allowing for a U.S. sphere of influence (POV). This is comparable to what some Quebec separatists have advocated for in the past (sovereignty-association, Quebec Autonomism) (According to whom?). The issue has been discussed on various fora, such as that for the Alaska Independence Party forum, which claims Alaska as the "lost province". However, no formal movement in favour of this proposal exists, nor does any political party currently advocate it. (Than it's completely POV or fabricated)
 * Southeastern British Columbia - In the 1990s, there was discussion amongst some municipal councillors (Who?)in Elkford, west of the Rocky Mountains, about joining Alberta, whose conservative politics(Only Neo-Cons?) were more in line with their own than were the left-wing politics of much of the rest of BC. This discussion did not result in any formal movement (Than it's completely POV or fabricated)
 * Uhm, please read the policy on neutral point of view before trying to enforce it. None of your complaints touch on Wikipedia representing a point of view in a way that's nonneutral.  There's some non-specificity that should be resolved with verifiable references, yes, but the article isn't making non-neutral statements, merely ones whose verifiability isn't certain.  Wily D  18:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake, the article should have been tagged with the Verifiability tag instead. As much of the article is hearsay, and unreferenced. Po' buster (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

SE BC et al.
Re the SE BC section in the table, it's not just Elkford council that's been heard from, it's a common refrain about the whole East Kootenay/Columbia Valley and it goes back decades, before WAC Bennett even. Likewise the Peace River Country. How to find/cite references to that is hard, usually it's mentioned in op-ed columns or bios as opposed to regular news coverage.Skookum1 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There have also been repeated suggestions that the Atlin Country at least, maybe also the Cassiar Country, should be merged with Yukon Territory rather than run remotely from Victoria (that region has no municipal governments of any kind, nor much in the way of population either - total impact on the Yukon population would be less than 5%).Skookum1 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And in addition to the loose sentiment on Vancouver Island for breaking away from the Mainland, there's a parallel sentiment in the Interior about breaking away from the Lower Mainland. Voices to this effect were in fact heard during the build-up to the Olympics because of all the money/infrastructure improvements going into Greater Vancouver while the rest of the province went without....citations for that might be a bit easier to find, as more recent.  Also, as far as proposed countries within BC, at least ten native nations have talked about being separate provinces/autonomous countries; these include (most loudly) the Haida Nation, and the whole gist of the Delgamuukw case was that the Gitxsan-Wet'su-we'ten Confederacy had never been extinguished and still existed....at one point the Nuxalk made a very clear statement about wanting to be separate/sovereign, and this is still the attitude among the St'at'imc/Lillooet and many of the more radical Secwepemc groups....all this got very sharply into focus during the Oka Crisis, which saw a plethora of blockades and protests in BC while the cameras were focussed on Montreal's bridges or afterwards; there was a blockade of teh road to Apex Alpine Resort from Penticton and the Penticton Band, or its warrior element, were very vocally calling for independence for the Okanagan people.Skookum1 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyedits
I have restored my copyedits that were deleted by the anonymous editor. Here is my rationale for each of them. If anyone disagrees with these edits, please discuss them here first, so we can develop a consensus. If these edits are reverted without getting a consensus here, I will undo the editors edits and protect the article if necessary. Ground Zero | t 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "The Parti Acadien decided once again to support the creation of a separate province" - this sentence doesn't make any sense. It implies that the PA (1) supported a separate province, (2) dropped that idea, and then (3) decdied again to support provincehood. But this article doesn't say that.
 * 2) "An area which was annexed by and is a part of Nova Scotia, but in the past it has been a separate colony." replaced by "An island that had been a separate colony, but was incorporated into Nova Scotia." This version is shorter (which is always better) and places events in the logical chronological roder: separate colony, then part of NS, rather than the other way around. And Cape Breton is certainly an island, so why generalize it as an "area"?
 * 3) " Montreal Gazette, "Montreal as 11th Province", J. Martin, 18 February 1971, pp.7 " replaced by " Montreal Gazette, "Montreal as 11th Province", J. Martin, 18 February 1971, pp.7 " per WP:MOS
 * 4) "advocated for the creation" replaced by "advocated the creation" - "for" is superfluous here.
 * 5) Northern Ontario Separation Movement -- this group appeared in 2006, but there is no evidence that it is still around, so it is better to describe it in the past tense than in the pluperfect.
 * ", and could do so in the future" - deleted - Wikipedia does not speculate.
 * ", ranked in the most likely to join to the least." - no evidence is provided for this ranking - this seems to be more speculation.
 * ", and while they could do so if they wished, are not likely to join Canada in the future since gaining independence or have dissolved as political entities.' - deleted - this is also speculation and not encyclopedic in tone.
 * 1) "Although Canada and the United States share the longest non-militarized border between two countries, there is a long history of secessionist movements and disputes about the border's demarcation." The "although" construction is used where the reader would expect one result from a fact, but there is instead the opposite result. "Although it is raining, she did not take an umbrella." The fact that Canada and the US have a non-militarized border does not mean that they should have no dispute. To say so is just opinion, and is not fact. Please review WP:NPOV.
 * 2) "either as part of Quebec or as it's own territory" - I fixed this once before. I don't know why someone would restore a grammatical error. "It's" is a contraction of "it is". Trying putting "it is" in that sentence. It doesn't make sense, does it? "its" is the possessive form of "it".
 * All looks and sounds right to me - thank you for helping this old article.Moxy (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * on side-tangent here, the usual phrase is "world's longest undefended border" should be used here; attempting to qualify it as "un-militarized" inflects the meaning and in fact is in error; there are no barbed wire fences and still open stretches of trackless wilderness and open prairie (for now), but the historical and current reality is that the border is lined by bases throughout; not surprisingly since we mostly live close to the border and because the cities evolved around points of military security or geotactical reality; this is hidden on teh Canadian side; on the US side a series of formidable bases are near it, too many to list; a dozen or more in WA/ID/MT, then there's Messina (across from Cornwall), Ft Ticonderoga or if that's the hsitorical fort its successor in the Lake Champlain area, and so on; the US has never had its border undefended; those bases were BUILT to attack Canada, or be on the defense from it; same with Victoria or Halifax, both still naval fortreses, though their immediate competition Port Townsend's strategic position is on Whidbey Island, the Kitsap Peninsula and in Everett and on Boeing Field; and lots more (Steilacoom, Ft Lewis, and more)........so I'm suggesting the return of that phrase to its normal/mostcommon and also most correct form. The boundary is armed to the teeth; on the Canadian side it WAS (eg. Chilliwack CFB was there to protect a hidden back valley from Whatcom County, and also to guard the mouth of the Canyon and the passes east......Stanley Park and Jericho and Point Grey and more were all defensive positions; at first against the Americans most of all.Skookum1 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos
I think the Turks and Caicos should definitely be mentioned here. Was there a reason for removal other then it being unsourced? I think the original editor was right that it was too much detail for the main T&C article. CMD (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am looking for better refs so we can add some info on the topic-  However the old text was just a copy and paste from here . Wait wait .... are you saying this is old info that was just moved  from a wiki article? I though it was new. .......... info restored (but trimmed) and referenced. Moxy (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's from this edit, more or less. Nontheless, still unsourced there. Happily, you seem to have done a good job solving issue. CMD (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by Option Canada
Sounds more like they wanted the whole of southwestern Quebec, not just Montreal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_Canada_(political_party)

I would do the edits, but every time I edit something on this page it gets deleted or edited, so someone else should have a go cuz atm I am done. --124.180.155.198 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * sounds like whomever out there has a WP:OWN/WP:COI problem. I just removed the unref tag and formatted the plain refs that were already there (no titles just dates and rags) and added some relevant see also and a stub and cat to flesh it out.  And yes, the area west towards Cornwall and Ottawa and some of the Townships and parts of the Gatineau and Laurentians too I think; not clear what this division would have done for the the English Shore on the Baie de Chaleur but that's more of a New Brunswickian/Acadian issue...what I mean is that yes the anglo areas were not limited to just Montreal, and the notion that the major cities (the Big Three/Four) should be provinces in their own rights is current in all those three/four provinces, which is why the possible support base from Quebecois as well as anglophones and allophones (who were also an intended "market" for this party); there was also talk, maybe it's already in the table/article, that indigenous Quebec wanted no part of separation and were declaring they wanted to remain part of Canada (they are mostly anglophone when not monolingual Cree or Montagnais or Inuit); this is also why I added the Clarity Act, which as I recall proposes the indivisibility of Quebec (also a key PQ/BQ point) and it was "everything or nothing", it was politically intended to reduce discussions of dismantling Quebec which began discussions about border rearrangements across the country; if them why not everywhere etc.....the notion of "Greater Labrador" is out there, too, which would mean that eastern "tongue" of Quebec would become Labrador.....yeah we could definitely have fun playing games with the map....especially in real life.  Anyways this Option Canada article needs those refs looked up, if online things are even possible; probably titles re unrecoverable; if the Gazette or another cite was or became Canwest, all back files and digital items on them were ordered destroyed by Izzy Asper in 1993.  Thus is history not written; it is erased.....about so much I won't go on; anyways this has been fixed up some, I'll keep an eye out for POV/OWN SPAs.Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Animation Broken
The animation of Candian territories is broken and displays a static picture.Yehoshua2 (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

 * It works if you click through (last time I looked). —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

BC
There's nothing about various secession movements within BC, and that's not even counting First Nations who have that agenda (and which are many....). Even now there's still a strong movement for Vancouver Island to be its own province, and the same sentiment is often heard in BC......also talk of Atlin joining the Yukon, for very practical reasons, and notably and especially the East Kootenay and the Peace River District joining Alberta....Vancouver/Lower Mainland very much functions as its own place; the "outer regions" and editorials and letter to the editor often voice suggestions that BC should be broken up and let the regions have their own governments.....Skookum1 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cascadia?
Surprised this isn't here already, given the number of cites available; either for a breakaway from Canada or for Washington and Oregon joining Canada....Skookum1 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's not here because the Cascadia movement would be to form its own country, seceding from both Canada and the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.113.197 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hans Island is not a proposed territory
It does not belong on this page. I haven't followed the growth of this page of late, but would have opposed its addition, whenever that was. A disputed territory is not a proposed territory; it's not the same as suggesting that Greenland, say, had any movement to join Canada, in the way that there were those on St Pierre & Miquelon proposing joining Confederation, or the same as Sverdrup's claims. Re Hans Island never has such a fuss been made over a small bit of frozen rock, but this is a case of Canada claiming territory recognized by the ICJ as Danish, not Denmark claiming a part of Canada, not the other way around, or any movement by any Hans Islanders to join Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sverdrup's claims doesn't really belong here either; or Russia's claims down to 43-50 and 50 from 181x-1824/25 and 1799, respectively, or the Oregon Dispute-era US proposals that what is now BC be the State of Jefferson (or was it Franklin?); or New Spain/California for that matter, which is of the same kind. Those are not "proposed territories of Canada" and belong on a different page completely.Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Removals
I removed Hans Island and the Sverdrup claims sections, and also the bit about the Alaska boundary dispute; none of those have to do with proposed territories; irredentism is a completely different subject. Of the European ones, there is Iceland to consider, though I don't have cites handy, but between talk of using the loonie as currency there was also some chatter, if not citable chatter, about joining Canada; there may be articles in Icelandic media mumbling about it somewhere. I also took out a bit of blatant pitch - SOAP - for the Vancouver Island movement, and note that the long-standing talk of the East Kootenay and the Peace River, which both share a timezone with Alberta and relate closely to it, have wanted to leave BC; never coalesced but cites are out there somewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is SOAP, and what is the validity of a separation movement? A Maritime Union would be the fifth-largest province in Canada by population, Cape Breton Island had been a separate colony, Nunatsiavut has a different culture, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean has a different culture, the government of Ontario does not pay sufficient attention to Northwestern Ontario, Toronto is the largest city in Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I remove those? No.  SOAP is WP:SOAP, soapboxing to advance an agenda in this case; no other entry has that kind of sales pitch at its start.  It doesn't belong there as it does come off like sales pitch; mentioning economics figures for the Island in the primary position and in a rationalization-context is part of that party's pitch; similar figures could be trotted out for the Interior or, noting what I already said about the Northeast and the East Kootenay, for smaller areas yet.  I don't think "background" justifies it when it sounds like that.  I haven't looked yet?  Did you restore Hans Island too?  WHY??Skookum1 (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Brad Wall invited Turks and Caicos to be part of Saskatchewan
I understand that Wall made the invitation in a tweet, and admitted the tweet was sarcastic. Based on those facts, I think it's misleading to say that Wall invited T&C to join Saskatchewan, without any reference to the fact that he was joking. In 1984, Reagan leaned into a microphone and announced that he'd outlawed Russia and bombing was set to begin in 5 minutes. I don't think an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously would refer to Reagan wanting to bomb the Soviet Union in 1984, without a reference to the circumstances (i.e. it was a joke). We have a whole article on that particular joke. I do think it would be fair to say that Wall jokingly invited T&C to join Saskatchewan. I think that's legitimate. The question then becomes whether Wall's joke tweet is sufficiently significant to merit inclusion in the article, or merely trivia. I don't have a strong opinion on that second issue. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd frankly consider it trivia. Had he made a substantive offer through more conventional channels, it would absolutely merit mention — but if it was meant as a sarcastic joke, I don't see it as being worth wasting wikibytes on. For added bonus, Twitter is never a sufficiently reliable source for anything in its own right anyway — between the possibility of hacking, the inability to properly analyze a tweet for tone and the 140-character limit imposing serious restraints on the ability to add much actual context or nuance to a statement, things people say on Twitter almost never really merit Wikipedia's attention at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clearly the most trivial of trivia, and twisting it into an "invitation" is beyond comprehension—a total misrepresentation of the sources. I'd oppose its inclusion in the article entirely as WP:UNDUE. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't most of this article trivia though? The Global video didn't say if it was sincere, or a joke, and neither did what I had written. Unless he retracted it, an invitation, whether formal or not, is an invitation. Right? 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted on your talk page, this was clearly and obviously a suggestion made in humour. If we are going to present it as anything other than that, then I flatly oppose its inclusion as a clear misrepresentation. Resolute 13:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine that Wall made the invitation in anything but jest. There would presumably be pretty significant financial, political and economic implications of T&C joining any province - not to mention a lot of practical considerations - and not sure it's even within provincial jurisdiction to make such an offer.  Given the circumstances, even if he didn't say it was a joke (although he did, didn't he?), you need to assume he had tongue in cheek.  Even Rob Ford would think twice before making such an "invitation".  So, let's not take it at face value. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But the Nova Scotia one is sincere, and there's never any joking in the Assembly. 117Avenue (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Nova Scotia invitation was the result of a vote, not a tweet, and nobody's suggesting removing it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Even a sincere invitation is dubious, for the reasons set out above. But I'm not going to wade into that issue.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are silly examples WP:N?
Why is that twaddle about the Rhinoceros Party and Jesusland in there? It's really and eyesore in an article as serious as this one. AngusCA (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Because notable examples are notable, and non-notable examples are non-notable. You linked WP:N, it behooves you to familiarise yourself with it. Wily D  08:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Didn't I see you in a Hotels.com commercial, rocking a beard? AngusCA (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ontario
Separation in Northern Ontario is back. But I don't have much time to update this in the list.  Volcano guy  13:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Cree and Ojibwa etc
What about proposed provinces and territories for first nations like Nunavut for Innuit?--Kaiyr (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With wp:reliable sources they could be included. CMD (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can reliably source the hard details of one or more specific and concrete proposals, then they could certainly be added to the article (Kanienkehaka and Nunavik and Nunatsiavut, for example, are already included; Nunavik being the Cree/Inuit region in northern Quebec, just for the record, not a misspelling of Nunavut.) But if you want somebody to float their own personal theories about First Nations entities that could theoretically shoot for provincehood, then this article isn't the right place for that kind of original research speculation. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nunavik is not a Cree region, although there is one Cree village in SW Nunavik. No, in northern Québec, Eeyou Istchee would be your best bet. Indeed, there is a case to be made to add: Eeyou Istchee, Nitaskinan, Nishnawbe Aski, Nitassinan/St'aschinuw and Nionwentsïo to this list. I do not know of any Anishinaabe (outside Nishnawbe Aski, which is quite large) or Mi'kmaq movement for provincehood or province-like-hood or pure secession. I am curious about movements within the Blackfeet Nation and other prairie nations... Danachos (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310231613/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4000/is_200207/ai_n9131167 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4000/is_200207/ai_n9131167

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong?
Okay there seems to be a person (or persons using multiple ISPs) who want to add Hong Kong to the list. This has been reverted for a number of times now. The reason, as I have stated in the reversion notes is that the assertion is not supported by the sources given. I have examined the sources, and only one has any mention of an association between Canada and Hong Kong; however it is a blog. Wikipedia policy WP:UGC is clear that Blogs are not Reliable Sources. The other "sources" are irrelevant to the subject. Until a RS can be provided this material cannot be included. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. TDL (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

 * @Mediatech492: That wasn't "user-generated content". The author is a critic/commentator who contributes extensively in the press and appears frequently in radio and television programmes. 219.77.116.103 14:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Perhaps he is known in Hong Kong, but not elsewhere. Regardless, the blog is insufficient by itself. If there is a widespread interest in this, then it should not be difficult for you to provide several actual RS to support this claim. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105113833/http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b887d3f8-2eb5-4886-b42a-b056ed05b509 to http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b887d3f8-2eb5-4886-b42a-b056ed05b509

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
I'm removing the inclusion of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean from the list, for three reasons: Ultimately, there does not seem to be any evidence, or even any suggestion, of an actual movement for a separate Saguenay province. Therefore, I'm removing it. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The page cited (broken link, though this is the page in question) makes no mention of such a movement, André Harvey's involvement, nor even of the region's distinct culture and flag. So right away the claim is dubious.
 * Using Google, I can find no reference to any Saguenay secession movement nor proposals, from Harvey or anyone else. My searches were non-exhaustive, but if this were a real proposal, and André Harvey were credited for bringing attention to it, then surely it would be easy to find.
 * André Harvey was a Progressive Conservative and then a Liberal— ie: a federalist. For that reason, I'm inclined to think that *if* he really did make such a suggestion, it was intended as a satirical criticism of the Quebec sovereignty movement (particularly by highlighting a "distinct culture") and not a serious proposal.

Where is Alaska
Some members of the Alaskan Independence Party want Alaska to leave the USA and join Canada as a province. There is information that says that somewhere (it should also be mentioned on AIP Wikipedia page). How can this page not have Alaska (or Greenland) on here and yet have the countries of Iceland and Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.123.224.212 (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading the article on the Alaskan Independence Party, their platform apparently seeks establishing Alaska as an independent country, there is nothing there about joining Canada. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As for Greenland, there was a discussion on this page on the topic, last updated in 2009 (see above). I know of nothing to indicate the situation has changed since then. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

On Facebook, there is a group (maybe more) that say that if Denmark doesn't renounce it's claim to the Han Island, Canada should claim Greenland. IMHO that's enough to put Greenland down on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.123.224.251 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Trinidad?
There is a persistent rumour among Toronto's air force veterans that representatives of Trinidad and Tobago secretly conducted talks with Diefenbaker to become part of Canada, and that it was pretty much a done deal when Pearson became prime minister and killed the treaty. Many RCAF veterans of that era claim to have arranged or guarded the flights between Downsview and Port of Spain for the T&T delegates. If there are any contributors in Ottawa who can confirm or deny if documentation exists because there is nothing in Toronto and most of the Downsview records aren't present in the Toronto archives. 192.0.182.43 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


text:
Category:Schools in Kent

Schools located in the county of Kent, UK.

__NOGALLERY__

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

title: Category:Schools in Kent


text:
Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation)

Hebrew vs. Jew
One entry on the page formerly read:
 * The term Hebrew is sometimes used by certain Christian groups to distinguish the Jews in ancient times (before the birth of Jesus) from Jews that lived afterward. Though important in some Christian theologies, the distinction is not recognized by the Jews themselves who call themselves Hebrew in Hebrew. Thus, to tell some Jews they are not the same as the Hebrews is likely to be offensive. See British Israelism, Khazars, Karaims etc.

Jews largely do observe the distinction between Hebrew and Jew in Hebrew—עברי (ivri, "Hebrew") is rarely used to refer to modern-day Jews, in my experience; the term יהודי (y'hudi, "Jew") is much more common. This is not always true, but very few Jews will be "offended" by someone trying to distinguish between ancient Hebrews and their descendants. Also, the references at the end seem out-of-place, so I've removed the last three sentences. —Simetrical (talk) 21:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, given my lezbos take on it, I added "This distinction is not strictly observed by most, but the word is still used more commonly to refer to ancient Jews than modern ones" to the end of the paragraph. —Simetrical (talk) 21:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stuff that includes the word Hebrew
There were a number of misplaced entries on the page—"the word Hebrew" cannot "mean . . . The Hebrew alphabet" or "The Hebrew calendar" or "The Hebrew Wikipedia". Look it up in a dictionary. I've moved those dubious entries to "See also", but they should probably be removed altogether. —Simetrical (talk) 21:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed derivation theories
It could also mean "the dusty ones", the tribe that came across the desert, or the "dust of the earth", as they were prophesied to become like in number. <- another dubious assertion, since this would be "Chevlim", not "`Ivrim". Besides, "dust of the earth" means "irrelvant", not "numerous", the prophecy says "sand of the sea[shore]"

It could also mean "chosen ones". <-- in what language, and according to whom? -TShilo12

Proposal to rename: Hebrew (disambiguate)
Proposal to rename as Hebrew (disambiguate), and redirect Hebrew to Hebrew language, which is by far the common meaning. --Haldrik 13:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Such a move would belong at Hebrew (disambiguation). --Eliyak T · C 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm sure the Hebrews come in a strong second. That needs to be considered.

Requested move 11 August 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved per clear consensus. No such user (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew (disambiguation) → Hebrew – Because there is no primary topic with the name 'Hebrew' in its title. PK2 (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Considering the related discussion that just ended at Talk:Hebrew language (an RM that was actually initiated by User:PK2), this is certainly not uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The result of that recent discussion was that there is no primary topic for Hebrew. I don't think another RM is needed. Vpab15 (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The result of that discussion was that there is no consensus. 162 etc. (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a primary topic by any measure, just look at the pageviews for the dab page compared to the redirect |Hebrew. Out of 216 readers who follow this redirect every day, barely 13 end up clicking through to the dab page, which means the remaining 203 are happy with where that redirect takes them. And that's not surprising: many of the entries currently listed on the dab page are just subtopics of Hebrew language, and the only ones for which the term "Hebrew" is actually ambiguous for are an obscure brand of beer, an even obscurer moth, and Hebrews – an article about the word, which is itself rarely used in the singular any more. – Uanfala (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. For the all the reasons mentioned in the recent RM at Talk:Hebrew language. There is no primary topic for Hebrew. Vpab15 (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. There were 4 supporters of the previous RM and 8 opposers, along with a few comments. I also think the base title should always be an article or disambiguation page, and never a redirect, per 6 users in that RM. -- PK2 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Primary redirects (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) are quite common. – Uanfala (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. -- PK2 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. Clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Compare e.g. . Narky Blert (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a totally different case. There are no other articles with that name. In this case we have Hebrews and the other articles with the same name in Hebrew (disambiguation). Vpab15 (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the language is the clear wp:primarytopic—blindlynx (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the language is the clear primary topic. The language should perhaps be moved to Hebrew. J I P  | Talk 02:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the language is the clear primary topic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation)


text:
Charles Sprague Sargent

Charles Sprague Sargent (April 24, 1841 – March 22, 1927) was an American botanist. He was appointed in 1872 as the first director of Harvard University's Arnold Arboretum in Boston, Massachusetts, and held the post until his death. He published several works of botany. The standard botanical author abbreviation Sarg. is applied to plants he identified.

Early life
Sargent was the second son of Henrietta (Gray) and Ignatius Sargent, a Boston merchant and banker who grew wealthy on railroad investments. He grew up on his father's 130-acre (53-ha) estate in Brookline, Massachusetts.

He attended Harvard College, where he graduated in Biology in the class of 1862. Sargent enlisted in the Union Army later that year, saw service in Louisiana during the American Civil War, and was mustered out in 1865. He traveled in Europe and Asia for three years.

Career
Having returned to his family's Brookline estate, "Holmlea", Sargent took over its management as a horticulturist, influenced by his cousin Henry Winthrop Sargent and H. H. Hunnewell of Wellesley. Under his direction, the family estate became a landscape without flower beds or geometric arrangements, but rather a recreation of nature with winding lanes, overhanging branches, and a profusion of trees and shrubbery.

When in 1872 Harvard University decided to establish an arboretum, Prof. Francis Parkman, at that time a professor of horticulture at Harvard's recently established Bussey Institution, probably suggested his young neighbor Sargent for the position. By the end of 1872, Sargent became the first Director of the Arnold Arboretum, a post he held until his death. He was also Director of the Botanic Garden in Cambridge. In 1882, he was elected as a member of the American Philosophical Society.

Marriage and family
On November 26, 1873, Sargent married Mary Allen Robeson (1853–1919), a daughter of Andrew Robeson Jr. They had two sons and three daughters, one of whom married the architect Guy Lowell. Their son Charles S. Sargent went to New York, where he became a partner in a securities firm.

Later career
Even by the standards of Boston society of the early 20th century, Charles Sprague Sargent was unusual. He was colder than the surrounding, and notoriously chilly, Boston society; had nothing to do with local government; and cared little for the social ills of his era. He concentrated on his arboretum, and always was at work during his waking hours. At the arboretum he worked with Frederick Law Olmsted, of the Olmsted Brothers, from master planning for the roads and plant collections, to small details such as the selection of tree plantings on Commonwealth Avenue.

In this career, Sargent came of age as a dendrologist and published extensively. His influence was felt nationally on the conservation of American forests (in particular the Catskills and Adirondacks). He was a member of the National Forest Commission (1896–97) under President Grover Cleveland, advising on the creation of 21 million acres of national forest reserves. In that position, he clashed with Gifford Pinchot: Sargent advocated for preserving the forests in a state of "wilderness", while Pinchot advocated for conserving the forests in a way that included "sustainable, productive" uses, including timber "harvests." He was chairman of a commission to examine the Adirondack forests and devise measures for their preservation in 1885.

Sargent became professor of arboriculture at Harvard in 1879. He planned the Jesup Collection of North American Woods in the American Museum of Natural History of New York City in 1880.

In 1888, he became editor and general manager of the weekly Garden and Forest, "a journal of horticulture, landscape art, and forestry". Garden and Forest was published in 10 volumes from 1888 to 1897 before being discontinued. In 1919, the first issue of the Journal of the Arnold Arboretum was published with Sargent as the editor-in-chief.

He was awarded the Veitch Memorial Medal of the Royal Horticultural Society in 1896.

Publications
These include:
 * Catalogue of the Forest Trees of North America (Washington, D. C., 1880);
 * Pruning Forests and Ornamental Trees, translated from the French of A. Des Cars (Boston, 1881);
 * Reports on the Forests of North America (Washington, 1884);
 * The Woods of the United States, with an Account of their Structure, Qualities, and Uses (New York, 1885); and
 * The Silva of North America (12 vols., Boston, 1882-1888).

Legacy and honors
In 1913, botanists Alfred Rehder & Ernest Henry Wilson published Sargentodoxa, a genus of flowering plants from China and Indo-China, belonging to the family Lardizabalaceae and was named in Charles Sprague Sargent's honor.

After Sargent's death in 1927, at an Arbor Day memorial ceremony, Massachusetts Governor Fuller planted a white spruce on the grounds of the Massachusetts State House in his memory, and noted:

"Professor Sargent knew more about trees than any other living person. It would be hard to find anyone who did more to protect trees from the vandalism of those who do not appreciate the contribution that they make to the beauty and wealth of our nation."

title: Charles Sprague Sargent


text:
Talk:Urbane

Urbane is an adjective, as in "This Wikipedia entry is far from urbane." The noun is Urbanity, an interesting characteristic of human life, which deserves a "history-of-ideas type entry— though not using this text. --Wetman 21:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey isnt this a word that is commonly used to mean quite the opposite, ie unsophisticated or boring? misused perhaps much like peruse? if so should we add a note? How ubane used often used as like how provencial though the words are opposite?Wyocoyote (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urbane


text:
Category:Schools in Lancashire

This lists the schools located in the county of Lancashire, England, including the unitary authorities of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.

title: Category:Schools in Lancashire


text:
Talk:Sailor Venus

Love Whip
How about the item called "Love Whip" which she uses in the manga to perform "Venus Love and Beauty Shock?" Shouldn't this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mines32 (talk • contribs)

 * We already talk about the chain around her waist, but as far as I know it doesn't have a real name. I've heard people call it the "love chain," the "wink chain," and various other things, but none of them appear in the official sources. Where are you getting "love whip" from? --Masamage ♫ 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiMoon? I think its an upgrade of her chain in which the hearts in the chain were transformed into roses. I think it was mentioned in the manga... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mines32 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, that change happens when she gets her second form and Love and Beauty Shock, so let's see. I think that where WikiMoon is getting that is from Alex Glover, who translates Venus as saying "love whip". The actual text in the manga says "ai no muchi," which could just as easily mean "whip of love" and be a description, not a name.
 * For comparison, see the Japanese names given for the other Senshi's special weapons. In act 35, Maakyurii Haapu (Mercury Harp). In act 36, Maazu Aroo (Mars Arrow). These are written in katakana and have the planet names in them; the harp even speaks to introduce itself by name. Jupiter, in act 37, gets the "ooku no ha," leaves of oak, which again is in Japanese and just seems to be a description.
 * So, those are my thoughts. It's definitely referred to as the "love whip" or "whip of love", but it's not clear that that's its formal name. --Masamage ♫ 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I think you do the final decision on the name before posting it to the article. :)Mines32 (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sailor Moon Official (which will work for Shinsouban/PGSM) calls it the Chain Belt. But in general, Item names are a massive headache since about every single last version has to give the items a name.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 * What's "Sailor Moon Official"? --Masamage ♫ 17:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sailor Moon Official Website at http://sailormoon.bandai.or.jp There is a working list of items on there. Most of them are renamed to fit PGSM though. So some of it is retconned. But the things like the goggles, the antenna, the feather pins, etc are listed on there. It's useful in a sense, but the project hasn't faced the items problem that much... so there are limitations on expecting to use those items/names.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Images
This article was criticized in its Good Article Review for having two many images. This morning, we had four (or six, depending on how you count it): The anime Senshi image at the top, the manga civilian image in the middle, the composite Sailor V image (which we've needed to pare down anyway, and which is sufficiently covered by the images at her series articles), and the anime attack image (which could be just as easily described with words).

I've removed the last two as the most redundant. I feel it's important to have both an anime and manga image, as well as both a Senshi and civilian image, so those are the ones I left.

Just explainin'. The big issue right now is to keep the rank of the article up. --Masamage ♫ 18:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Venus Wink Chain Sword
The article claims that Sailor Venus's chain links are heart-shaped when she uses Venus Wink Chain Sword in act 24 of the manga, but if you check act 24 or others from the Mugen arc, the links are always round when she uses that attack. The Oracle shows an example of a heart-shaped Venus Wink Chain Sword, but that image actually corresponds to Venus Love and Beauty Shock. Sentōkisei (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Split sections more nuetrally
I was thinking we should separate more accurately by splitting. Sections to Codename:Sailor V from Sailor Moon. I barely started reading Sailor V so I don't know how interconnected the series is but if there's enough to keep them separate would it be ok?Lucia Black (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * When we have information from Sailor V, we present it as saying "In Sailor V, X happened". Sailor V is not very long compared to Sailor Moon - as more reviews of Sailor V come in, we might add more. I don't know that having a Codename: Sailor V section would be helpful, if that was what you had in mind? --Malkinann (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Im refering to splitting the sections by series.Lucia Black (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content and addition of excessive detail in infobox
We've got a bit of a sticky situation here. seems to disagree with me and over the excessive detail in the abilities and powers section on the info box. Hula Hup and I think that this is excessive detail and sourced content. The user in question, however, contradicts this by saying it is sourced and a source tag must be added, which I feel is really unnecessary, as it is mentioned in the lead section and abilities section (which is sourced) and has been repeatedly removing the sourced content and adding excessive detail to the infobox over the past couple of days since yesterday. This occurred over a month after Hula Hup removed the excessive detail in question. As I have reverted his changes three times and do not wish to violate the three revert rule or edit war any further, I am taking this discussion here to see if other users can voice their opinions on the matter here in order to build consensus per the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just believe that the information presented in that little snippet is too broad. Readers would not get anything from reading that because it is too vague. But if we just add that her powers relate to light and love (which I really disagree with being excessive, if anything it's the main idea of her powers), then readers will get the gist of her powers and be tempted to read more. What I added sums it up nicely without being too excessive, in my opinion. Thanks--Junebea1 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, even if we add her powers relating to light and love, that would still count as excessive detail and removal of sourced content in the info box, as we go by reliable sources, not original research. These powers are thoroughly covered in the Special powers and items section and is well-sourced. As such, we may need to keep it concise as possible without deleting any sourced content. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because wellsourced does not merit it to be on the infobox. Its just removing it from the infobox, its not deleting info. Plus i find powers and abillities to in-universe to that type of story.Lucia Black (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how that is sourced information? That little snippet of information regarding Venus' powers does not contain any sources (i.e. [1][2][3]). Besides, 'creation of damaging energy' applies to each Sailor Scout, so that's why it could be considered confusing. I think we should model that part of the infobox after each Sailor Scout's general powers (i.e. Venus has light and love powers, Jupiter has lightning and wood powers, Neptune has ocean-based powers). Just trying to help out. Junebea1 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Stuff in the infobox per WP:LEADCITE is generally not sourced if it is covered in the body unless it's contriversial (it's a very contriversial claim or its a direct quote). As for excessive detail argument, it may be. Giving the basis of what her power descriptors are, light and love, would not be excessive detail. However, whether it should/shouldn't be included would have be decided on how essential it is to understanding her character and whether the other senshi have similar listings. Excessive detail would be listing every one of her powers. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  17:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sailor Venus


text:
Category:Schools in Merseyside

This lists the schools located in the metropolitan county of Merseyside.

title: Category:Schools in Merseyside