Talk:New France/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

See: (cur) (last) . . 02:40, 23 Sep 2003 . . Adam Bishop (Some massive expansion) --- I deleted some things that are not correct:

"Louisiana remained off-limits to settlement from the American colonies, which helped contribute to the American Revolution over a decade later."

For clarification: Louisiana was under Spanish control until Napoleon and had zero to do with the American Revolution. Angelique 00:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't always under Spanish control...they got it from the French after the Seven Years' War, didn't they? (NO ! Angelique 01:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)) Anyway, I guess I meant the French territory in the Ohio Valley, (WHAT FRENCH TERRITORY - There was only one, the Louisiana Territory] Angelique) where Americans weren't allowed to settle, since that did contribute to the Revolution. (My God! Where do you dream up this stuff that you are inserting as fact into Wikipedia? You went to what University? And studied what?)Angelique 01:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By the way, are you going to answer the questions that Mathieu and I have asked you elsewhere, or am I going to have to repeat them on every page you edit? I wish you would stop being so contentious (even your language here could be much more pleasant). Adam Bishop 00:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have deleted the External links because they have no merit in an encyclopedia reference:

1. New France: 1524-1763 is the personal website of Patrick Couture and has no credibilty
2. Lists of Governors, Intendants, and Bishops is a site that provides no statement of ownership but refers to three individuals, one of which leads to Claude Routhier, an employee of the the cable TV company, Videotron. Angelique 01:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) (And this is interesting because Videotron is owned Quebecor which also owns Sun Media.) Angelique

Okay, if there was only one French territory called the Louisiana Territory, then the Americans weren't allowed to settle in Louisiana, were they? What is so hard to understand about that? And yes, the Spanish did get it from the French in the mid-eighteenth century. I have issues with your removal of the external links, but I suppose that's not as bad as everything else you're doing...

Now, you have changed what you were stating as fact: Please explain how this had to do with the American Revolution? Angelique 01:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can you please be more willing to work with other people here? Your actions are very un-Wiki-like. Adam Bishop 01:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Certainly. Apologize first and before opening mouth or typing assertions into articles or belittling others (me), check your facts first. Angelique 01:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) -- Please check your facts. I don't want to have to recheck all your additions to all the articles you have inserted information into based on your profound knowledge of history. Angelique 01:23, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Adam Bishop 01:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just because u dont like the external links, doesnt mean they wont be of interest to the reader. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Angelique, I obviously do not want to get into an edit war with you, so I wish you would be more cooperative. Removing an external link because it is four times removed from a media conglomerate is very strange - the link is just a list! As for the personal website, if it is imformative and useful, so what if it is a personal site? Why don't you replace them with something better, if you know of any? Adam Bishop 01:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I do not wish to impose my views, only to work to make Wikipedia a valuable and reliable encyclopedia. As such, I placed my thoughts on this matter on the Village Pump page. Was that proper? If not, where should it be to discuss such a vital issue as Wikipedia's credibility? Angelique 02:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ahem, may I?

It seems to me that most of these things should be in the History of Quebec or in the History of Canada. But then again 1763 is not a perfect cut off point.

In all your discussions you are both right, in a way. The special case of Louisiana is tricky because there was a crucial boundary change in this period. On November 3rd 1762 France transferred Louisiana to Spain in a secret treaty which was revealed only in 1764. The formal transfer to Spain occured only in 1769.

During that relatively short period the boundaries of Louisiana were redrawn in a radical way: By a treaty co-signed in Paris in February of 1763 by representatives of France, Portugal, Spain and Great Britain all of the parts of Louisiana which were East of the Mississippi river (and also East of the Iberville river, and lake Maurepas and lake Pontchartrain, to be precise) were ceded to Great Britain.

This is the territory (East of the Mississippi and West of the Appalachians) which Great Britain decided to join to what was formerly New France. By the Quebec act which Parliament passed in London in 1774 this territory was subjected to rule from a British governor, normally located in Quebec city. By this same Quebec Act of 1774 all this vast territory was considered as being both under a localized version of french civil law (the codified "coutume de Paris") and British or English criminal law. Again within this territory, the Roman catholic church was granted all the legal privileges it had known in New France while under the french crown. The inhabitants of the 13 colonies were mostly protestants used to some form of self-rule by locally elected assemblies. They were technically not forbidden to colonize the area West of the Appalachians, but to move there would have meant that they would have to abandon any form of self-government and abide by what was to them an alien form of law. Added to this was the fact that the colonials had for several generations fought (as subjects of the British crown but also as defenders of their farms and families) many bitter wars and skirmishes against the French of New France. In the continuing heat of these conflicts much hatred was generated against everything which was French and/or catholic. Moving to a territory were the Catholic church had legal privileges which were unknown in the 13 colonies was thus very far from attractive! In addition vast stretches of the territory were considered as Indian lands.

This is why the Quebec act of 1774 and the presence of a bit of what had been once Louisiana is often considered as one of the causes of the rebellion of the 13 colonies (soon to be known as the USA) against the Crown.

Do what you wish with what I write, but I would be most pleased if you took the care to check up my facts in something else than the 1961 edition of the Britannica, which I consulted to compose the above. A long time ago I did an honours BA in History and had the great fortune to study under some wise specialists in the History of Canada and New France. They taught me that there is no such thing as a perfect source. Always check things in many sources. All of the text is mine: I have taken only the facts from the 1961 EB. The EB was necessary because my memory fails me and I could not have easily sorted out all those treaties and changes of boundaries whose intricacies I vaguely remembered.2003-12-08, 23:35

Thanks for that, I hope it can help us here. Adam Bishop 16:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article has nothing about Louisiana. Volunteers? Angelique 14:06, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I do not yet know how to edit or simply male a remark about the validity of some of the statements yet on this website, but two notions in the following article suscited my attention. Firstly i do not agree with this sentence :

"These years of peace are often referred to by the French as New France's "Golden Age" but the aboriginal peoples regarded it as the continued decimation of their nations."

I dont think that New France's "Golden age" is directly linked with a continued decimation ofthe aboriginal nations of north america and by putting these two in the same sentence, it is clear that the author is trying to create somekind of association. It is a known fact that the french had strong trade alliances with many amerindian tribes from the st. lawrence plains such as the Montagnais, Hurons and Algonquins especially during this so-called "golden age". Otherwise the french tried to associate themselves with the natives as much as possible and had only remote usage of these people as slaves compared to the english or spanish colonies. So i think that by making this notion of continuous decimation of the north american native tribes a direct causal result of "nouvelle-france's" golden age is purely un-factual, deliberate and grossly exagerated.

Secondly there is repeated reference to the huguenot population in North America being the fruit of intolerance by the catholic hegemonical kingdom of france and the source of their demise in North america. I've recently found out the existence of this belief in american culture of the importance of the huguenot presence in the 7 year war and the independance war. Fact is, it is gravely exagerated and hyperbolized.

For instance, this is the first sentence following the title Fall of New France:

"New France now had over 50,000 inhabitants, a vast increase from earlier in the century, but the British American colonies greatly outnumbered them with over one million people (including a substantial number of French Huguenots)."

Firstly, most of the fighting baring any definite instance over the results of the war came from the ohio regions and northward. It is also a fact that most Huguenots established themselves in the southern states, mainly in Virginia and South Carolina. I therefore do not see the importance of the huguenot population in the capitulation of such towns as Quebec, or Ville-Marie.

Finally, i agree that intolerance was directly the cause of the decimation and exodus of the huguenots demographic in France, but i do not agree that because a few thousands(because it wasnt much more) were constrained to move to the english settlements in north america that american protestants should elevate the martyrs to national heroes and at the same time justify their actions. And by the way, most huguenots moved to neighboring protestants nations for the sake of urgency and pragmatical accessibility.

This is what ive been able to decipher quickly. Other remarks or updates may follow.

I agree with your comments. The first paragraph is the work of a now banned user (Angelique/DW/JillandJack/A. Lafontaine) who used to write all kinds of anti-Catholic, anti-French, and anti-Quebec remarks all over Wikipedia. The policy of Wikipedia regarding banned user is that all of what they inputted should be removed. The second paragraph you mentionned has the very common reference to the French Huguenot which in a number of articles would be perfectly valid and useful but here doesn't add anything of substance. -- Mathieugp 22:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The Founding of New France

--209.226.250.147 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Throughout the rest of the 16th century the European fishing fleets continued to make almost annual visits to the eastern shores of Canada. Chiefly as a sideline of the fishing industry, there continued an unorganized traffic in furs. At home in Europe new methods of processing furs were developed and beaver hats in particular grew very fashionable. Thus new encouragement was given to the infant fur trade in Canada. In 1598 Troilus de Mesgouez, marquis de la Roche, set out for Canada armed with a new kind of authority--a royal monopoly which gave him the exclusive right to trade in furs. La Roche established a small colony on Sable Island, an isolated Atlantic sandbar southeast of Nova Scotia. The settlement, which proved a dismal failure, was the first of a series of efforts by France to persuade various leaders to set up colonies in Canada in return for an official monopoly of the fur trade. Pierre Chauvin in 1600 established a trading post at Tadoussac, on the St. Lawrence River. This post survived for about three years. In 1604 the fur monopoly was granted to Pierre du Guast, sieur de Monts. He led his first colonizing expedition to an island located near the mouth of the St. Croix River. This in time was to mark the international boundary between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine. Among his lieutenants was a geographer named Samuel de Champlain, who promptly carried out a major exploration of the northeastern coastline of what is now the United States (see Champlain). In the spring the St. Croix settlement was moved to a new site across the Bay of Fundy, on the shore of the Annapolis Basin, an inlet in western Nova Scotia. Here at Port Royal in 1605 a settlement Champlain described as the Habitation was established. It was France's most successful colony to date. The land came to be known as Acadia--209.226.250.147 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

French settlement North of Mexico

http://habitant.org/franco.htm

Make a tour around Me, NH, VT.

Takima 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose new Navbox

PROTOTYPE NAVBOX DELETED

The main problem with WP's coverage of New France is that there is little continuity between the different locales. Americans editors have made the Louisiana page very good, but much of it duplicates the main page. Meanwhile the main page concentrates way too much on Canada, and neglects Acadia, Louisiana, etc. There is a separate page for the colony of Canada but it is mostly unused. To help readers, and editors get a better understanding of how New France was organized. I am proposing creating this new Navbox template. The first section I am committed to and eventually I want to see it on this page regardless. The rest is open to debate and change.

What do you think? Is it too broad, too narrow? Would a list of topics be better? Thanks for the imput. Kevlar67 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This template suits the article (and related ones) well. Topics can be added or dropped as and when necessary. Go ahead with it dude.--Victor 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

1655?

I am confused with this date. What happened in 1655? Isn't it supposed to be 1663 if we are to select the creation of the royal province as a start date? -- Mathieugp 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

'Fontainbleau Treaty'??

In the text, it is writen that "The Louisiana Territory, under Spanish control since the end of the Seven Year's War, remained off-limits to settlement from the thirteen American colonies". I would like here a reference for this assumption and proof of this obscure Fontainebleau Treaty. If a serious source cannot be provided, this information might then be false and should be removed. (Laurentien 22:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

There is nothing obscure about the Treaty of Fontainebleau centuries after the fact. Even Wikipedia has an article on it right here: Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762). -- Mathieugp 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is only on Wikipedia (which is not a serious reference and cannot be taken as one) where I saw it. Can you provide an outside reference. Remember that everything that is written should be referenced for verification reasons. (Laurentien 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Err, even a cursory Google search for "Treaty of Fontainebleau 1792 -Wikipedia" [1] reveals quite a lot of bona fide references to the treaty. And you did see the References section in the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762) article, right? And the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which while perhaps not completely unbiased, is a reasonably reliable source for some historical information. Granted, the reference could do with a page number to help readers. See p 380 for a description on the treaty. Here are a few other references, gleaned from just a few moments of searching: [2] [3] [4] [5] Cheers. older ≠ wiser 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Map cleanup

The captions on the 1750 map need to be translated into English. -- Beland 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I went to commons and asked the uploader. Dread Pirate Westley•^Aargh 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a crack at translating it, let me know if you see any mistakes. Kmusser 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A better version is available on Commons: Image:Nouvelle-France_map-fr.svg. I asked to the atelier graphique to translate the map in english. I hope it won't be long... JF Lepage 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A question about UserBoxes for this page

Hey. I'm pretty inexperienced to wikipedia coding and i was wondering if someone could make a userbox which:

has a picture of the {{flag of new france|image:Pavillon_royal_de_France.svg}} on the left side and the {{Image:Flag_of_Quebec.svg}} on the other and writing saying "This user is interested in the history of {{New france}} and colonial {{Québec}}"

This would be greatly appreciated as it is a part of history i'm interested in and it is not propely represented on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/History page.

Thanks, User:-1348--1348- (User talk:-1348-talk) 07:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Who the hell put in cherries and headline text on the article contents section? Albertgenii12 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - it was IP vandalism of Template:History of Canada. Thanks, as that affects a lot of articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Five Colonies

The article indicates in the introduction that New France was divided into 5 colonies: Canada, Newfoundland, Hudson Bay, Louisiana & Acadia. The references to Hudson Bay and Newfoundland link to the geographical bay and the island of Newfoundland respectively, where there is no discussion of the French colony. Was there a governmental structure for 'Hudson Bay'? When did they get established? Was the French colony at Hudson Bay (which I honestly know nothing about) not given a name besides the name of the English explorer? It would be good to get proper references for all of these, especially the less well-known French colonies of 'Hudson Bay' and Newfoundland. Was the colony of 'Canada' formally established as such, or is that the name that is given to the area around the St. Lawrence to distinguish it from the broader 'New France'? Corlyon (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

These are all good questions and points. The references are not that difficult to find, but not always available in English, except in books people tend not to read often. ;-) Regarding the administration of the New France colonies, the only online source I can point you to is this one under Note 1 in Canada, New France. Canada entered international law formally under that name in the Treaty of Paris of 1763:

... 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...

Canada was basically the three districts of Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, and Montreal, each being governed by their own particular governors. The governor-general in Canada, who habitually also had the commission of particular governor of Quebec, was nominally the governor-general of all of New France, therefore including the very distant Louisiana. In practice, Louisiana was institutionally independent from Canada, the King of France and his ministers were in direct contact with the Governor of Louisiana, and furthermore the Governor General in Canada was instructed by Paris not to interfere with Louisiana's affairs. As for Acadia, Newfoundland and Hudson Bay, these colonies were ceded to GB too early to develop their own provincial institutions. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. History taught in the schools tends to be over-simplified and squeezed down to the broadest brush-strokes. I will follow that up, as the article needs a bit of work to elaborate especially on the two lesser-known French colonies. There are lists of 'Governors of Acadia' [[6]] and 'Governors of Plaisance' [[7]] here on Wikipedia, so there would have been some institutions for those colonies of Acadia and Newfoundland, even though they may not have been as developed as the Canada colony. Another mystery is that the governors of Acadia end in 1710, but Louisbourg remained in French hands until the mid-century, so I am curious to track down what Louisbourg's status was, if it was not considered part of the colony of 'Acadia'. Perhaps it was still Acadia, but with a different (military?) governance structure. I assume Île Royale did not have status as a separate colony. Corlyon (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

France ceded most of Acadia and Newfoundland with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. After that, the French built Louisbourg on Île Royale and tried to resettle the Acadians there. It could be argued that in a way Ile Royale succeeded Acadia. Ile Royale had its own colonial government with a Governor and a Superior Council, same as Canada and Louisiana. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. If Île Royale had its own government structure then perhaps it also merits discussion in terms of being a separate colony and certainly there will need to be a list of governors to be created, and the history section of the Cape Breton Island article here should be expanded to include a more complete discussion of the status of Ile Royale. I have done some digging and discovered that all of the Hudson Bay Co. forts except one were captured by the French during 'King William's War' by the Sieur d'Iberville. York Factory was apparently renamed Fort Bourbon and remained in French control until the Treaty of Utrecht along with most of the other HBC depots. Presumably that is the time that the French government would have established a separate French colony at Hudson Bay (although given the challenges of the climate and terrain, settlement with farmers or planters would have been out of the question). I have even managed to track down a passing reference to a M. de Isle as 'gouverneur' [8] at fort Bourbon, so I think I may be on the right trail to find a verifiable citation for the French Hudson Bay colony.  : ) Corlyon (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found what I believe is a reliable English (and French) language reference referring to the establishment of a colony of Île Royale (website of Louisbourg Archaeology Program [9]) and a list of governors of the colony from a site called 'WorldStatesmen.org' that seems to be comprehensive and, from what I can tell, reliable.[10], as I cross-referenced the information for the colony of Vancouver Island (which I am familiar with) and the info seemed complete and accurate. (someone has gone to a lot of painstaking trouble over this site) So I will add a reference to the Ile Royale colony to this article in a way that links it to the earlier colony of Acadia. The WorldStatesmen.org site also gives the names of French governors of York Factory/Fort Bourbon. Corlyon (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Good! Good! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Title

Some anonymous contributor renamed the title (but not the name) of the article from simply New France to Viceroyalty of New France on September 9, 2008 [11]. I am surprised it was not reverted by anyone. While technically it may be true that it started as a Viceroyalty, its constitution evolved over time and several French provinces sprung on its territory after 1663. Consequently, I do not believe the article should be name anything but simply New France. Trying to find some references on this, I found two sources that state that the Viceroyalty was suppressed by Richelieu on April 29, 1627[12]. I will fix it now. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone else did rename the page (on December 26, 2008), but I moved it back right away. I didn't think about the title in the first line. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Acadie N'Etait Pas Dans La Nouvelle France!

Acadia was not part of New France. It was a separate Royal Province and was founded earlier. Port Royal (now Annapolis Royal) was the first French settlement in Canada.

It is largely due to the distinct colonial histories that Acadian French is markedly different in style and vocabulary from Canadian French.

Example: en Ontario, au Quebec, au Michigan, etc., on dit - j'ai, I have; nous avons, we have. en Acadie, on dit j'ai, I have, j'avons, we have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.12.183.189 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Acadia was part of New France, along with Canada, Louisiana, Terre-Neuve and Baie d'Hudson. After the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, Terre-Neuve, Baie d'Hudson and most of the territory of Acadia was ceded to Great Britain. What was left of Acadia after 1713 took the name of Ile Royale. There is an ambiguity over the name "New France" that comes from the fact that sometimes Canada was called New France all by itself, at the exclusion of the other regions/provinces of it. There are quantity of sources describing this in more details, among those one can find quickly online are:

• Le Canada à l'époque de la Nouvelle-France
• La Nouvelle France du XVIIIe siècle
• Le Québec et l'Amérique du Nord
• La Nouvelle-France (1534-1760)

New France consisted in several regions administered separately just like New England. It's as simple as that. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends, I'd think. If the royal charters administer the regions separately and Quebec is the only one officially named New France, the article should mention that and explain that it's become an informal catch-all for French North American colonies, despite being inaccurate w/r/t the time period itself. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs More Louisiana

Hey I got something on this Louisianne thing. Why is there so little reference to the region in this article? It seems like even with the separate article on area, there should still be a little more about it here. Leodmacleod 9:15 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, too much duplicate text would be a waste of time. Just link. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

East Texas wasn't French

I'm not sure who keeps making these maps showing France in possession of the Texas Piney Woods but except for the three years from 1719 to 1721, they weren't. Beyond that: they were adversarially held by hostile and fortified Spaniards. The French claimed some northeastern corners of Texas and New Mexico owing to watersheds & in the absence of settlement there & its importance to the Adams-Onis Treaty, it's no biggie, but the claims of a French Nacogdoches really need to be properly dated (1720) or stop. -LlywelynII (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I Totally agree with the territory of nouvelle France didn't go that far on eastern Texas !

But the problem is the map ! this map is completely wrong and it got banned from all of the other wikipedia pages (Spanish,French,German,Russian,Chines and a lot of other languages) , i don't know why the English wikipedia refuses to show the real map 'Fichier:Nouvellefrance-V2.jpg' wish is the exact map the territory of New France.

Hope this problem is gonna get fixed soon because it's not good to have a fake map showing on a encyclopedia !

• -Hypersite (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious to anyone who has knowledge of the land claims between 1600 and 1800 that France never had as much territory as is depicted in your so-called "Nouvellefrance-V2" image. That image is obviously a wildly inflated version of French territories. It seems to be the work of a history revisionist, forcing other Europeans (and their Wiki sites) to go along with this delusion. How can you trust a map that someone just loaded onto Wikipedia without checking first if it matches other reliable sources? The current map—File:Nouvelle-France map-en.svg—on the other hand, matches exactly with several sources, such as New France - 1750 and New France by Guillaume De l’Isle, 1741. Just because something is used at other Wiki sites is no grounds for following that, because Wiki relies on WP:RS not other Wiki sites! --Skol fir (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

LouisianeFrançaise01.png suffers from the Texas problem (and some others regarding Michigan, Illinois Country, &c.) but at least doesn't ignore the French claims to possess the entire watershed of the Missouri as the current page maps do. What's the reasoning for the maps currently used on this page? If it's occupancy, surely the French didn't possess nearly as much as the map still does show. If it's claims, why ignore some but not others? -LlywelynII (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• What ? It's simple to see that the map (Nouvelle-France map-en.svg) is completely true, first check the position of the 60 fort on the map and you will see that they are all at the good spot witch automatically give all this territory, but is this is not enough for you check all the source that this document was made with witch are told in the document's sources:

The Books

• 1) Nouvelles Etudes Sur Les la Verendrye Et Le Poste de L'ouest
• 2) Histoire et description générale de la Nouvelle France

avec le journal historique d'un voyage fait par ordre du roi dans l'Amérique septentrionnale (du 1er tome au 5eme)

• 3) La nouvelle france: de Cartier a Champlain, 1540-1603
• 4) La Nouvelle-France: les Français en Amérique du Nord, XVIe-XVIIIe siècle.

MAPS USED

• 1) [Planisphere]. A Dieppe par Nicolas Desliens, 1566
• 2) Carte de l'Ocean ou sont tracees les differentes routes des navigateurs au tour du monde. [dressee par Buache de la Neuville].
• 3) Cette carte montre le chemin que Louis Jolliet a fait depuis Tadoussac iusqu'a la Mer du Nord, dans la Baye D'hudson, et marque la vraye scituation de la Baye et du destroit; ce qui est marque de rouge est le chemin par ou il a este.
• 4) Carte de l'Amerique Septentrionnale : depuis le 25, jusqu'au 65° deg. de latt. & environ 140, & 235 deg. de longitude / par Iean Baptiste Louis Franquelin, hydrographe du roy, à Québec en Canada.
• 5)Carte de l'affaire de Montmouth : ou le G'al Washington commandon l'armée américaine et le G'l Clinton l'armée angloise le 28 juin 1778 /
• 6)Carte de l'Amerique Septentrionnale : depuis le 25, jusqu'au 65° deg. de latt. & environ 140, & 235 deg. de longitude / par Iean Baptiste Louis Franquelin, hydrographe du roy, à Québec en Canada.
• 7)Carte de la côte de la Louisiane depuis la Baye St. Joseph, jusqu'à celle de St. Bernard où tous les ports et bons mouillages sont marquez par des ancres; avec la *8)quantité de piés d'eau que l'on y trouve.
• 9)Carte de la coste de la province de la Louisiane et des bouches du Micissipy ou fleuve St. Louis,
• 10)Carte de la découverte faite l'an 1673 dans l'Amérique septentrionale.
• 11)Carte de la Florida, de la Louisiane, et pays voisins : pour servir à l'Histoire générale des voyages /
• 12)Carte de la Louisiane et des pays voisins
• 13)Carte de la Louisiane et des pays voisins, dédiée à M. Rouillé, sécretaire d'État, ayant le Département de la marine.
• 14)Carte de la Louisiane et du cours du Mississipi [i.e. Mississippi]: dressée sur un grand nombre de mémoires entrautres sur ceux de Mr. le Maire /
• 15)Carte de la Louisiane et pays voisins, pour servir a l'Histoire générale des voyages.
• 16)Carte de la Louisiane par le Sr. d'Anville.
• 17)Carte de la Nouvelle Angleterre, Nouvelle Yorck, et Pensilvanie.
• 18)Carte de la rivière de Mississipi : sur les mémoires de Mr. Le Sueur qui en a pris avec la boussole tous les tours et detours depuis la mer jusqu'à la rivière St. Pierre, et a pris la hauteur du pole en plusieurs endroits /
• 19)Carte des positions occupeés par les trouppes Américaines apres leur retraite de Rhode Island le 30 Aout 1778 /
• 20)Carte des possessions françoises et angloises dans le Canada, et partie de la Louisiane, 1756.
• 21)Carte des voyages du Cape. Carver, dans la partie intérieure de l'Amérique septentrionale en 1766, et 1767.
• 22)Carte du Canada et de la Louisiane qui forment la Nouvelle France et des colonies angloises ou sont representez les pays contestez.
• 23)Carte du cours du fleuve St. Louis depuis dix lieues audessus de la Nouvelle Orleans jusqu'à son embouchure ou sont marquées les habitations formées, et les terrains concedez [i.e. concédés], auxquels on n'a pas travaille.
• 24)Carte générale du territoire d'Orléans comprenant aussi la Floride Occidentale et une portion du territoire du Mississipi /
• 25)Carte general de toute la côte de la Louisianne jusqu'a la Baye St. Bernard, coste de la Floride, Baye de la Mobille, Be. de Pansacole, Baye de St. Ioseph, St. Marc des Apalaches. dans l'Amerique septentle., 1747 /
• 26)Carte nouvelle de l'Amérique Angloise, contenant la Virginie, Mary-Land, Caroline, Pensylvania, Nouvelle Iorck, N:Iarsey, N. France, et les terres nouvellement découerte dressé sur les relations les plus nouvelles.
• 27)Carte particulière d'une partie de la Louisianne ou les fleuve et rivierres [i.e. rivières] onts etés relevé a l'estime & les routtes [i.e. routes] par terre relevé & mesurées aux pas, par les Srs. Broutin, de Vergés, ingénieurs & Saucier dessinateur.
• 28)Carte de la découverte faite l'an 1673 dans l'Amérique septentrionale.
• 29)Carte particulière du cours du fleuve St. Louis depuis le village sauvage jusqu'au dessous du Detour aux Angloix, des lacs Pontchartrain & Maurepas & des rivières & bayouc qui y aboutissent /
• 30)Cartes et plans de l'Amerique.
• 31)Cours du fleuve Saint Louis depuis ses embouchures jusqu'à la rivière d'Iberville et costes voisines.
• 32)Embouchures du fleuve St. Louis ou Mississipi. 1763.
• 33)Franquelin's map of Louisiana.
• 34)Hudson's Bay's country after La Veranderie, about 1740 /
• 35)La Californie ou Nouvelle Caroline : teatro de los trabajos, Apostolicos de la Compa. e Jesus en la America Septe. /
• 36)La Floride /
• 37)La Louisiane et pays voisins.
• 38)La Nouvelle France où Canada.
• 39)Les États Unis de l'Amérique septentrionale, partie occidentale.
• 40)Les costes aux environs de la rivière de Misisipi : découvertes par Mr. de la Salle en 1683 et reconnues par Mr. le Chevallier d'Iberville en 1698 et 1699 /
• 41)A map of Louisiana, with the course of the Missisipi, and the adjacent rivers, the nations of the natives, the French establishments and the mines; by the author of ye *42)History of that colony. 1757.
• 43)Map of Nova Scotia, or Acadia; with the islands of Cape Breton and St. John's, from actual surveys,
• 44)Map of the northeast coast of North America, 1607, drawn by Samuel de Champlain : a facsimile from the Library of Congress.
• 45)A map of the sources of the Chaudière, Penobscot, and Kennebec rivers,
• 46)The Mississippi.

A new and accurate map of the English empire in North America; Representing their rightful claim as confirmed by charters and the formal surrender of their Indian friends; likewise the encroachments of the French, with the several forts they have unjustly erected therein.

• 47)Nouvelle decouverte de plusieurs nations dans la Nouvelle France en l'année 1673 et 1674.
• 48)Partie de l'Amérique septent? qui comprend la Nouvelle France ou le Canada,
• 50)Partie occidentale de la Nouvelle France ou Canada.
• 51)Partie orientale du Canada.
• 52)Plan de la Nouvelle Orleans.
• 53)Plan de la retraite de Barren Hill en Pensilvanie : ou un détachement de deux mille deux cent hommes sous le G'al LaFayette étois entouré par l'Armée angloise sous les G'als Howe, Clinton et Grant le 28 May 1778.
• 54)Plan de Rhode Islande, les differentes operations de la flotte françoise et des trouppes Américaines commandeés par le major général Sullivan contre les forces de terre *55)et de mer des Anglois depuis le 9 Aout jusqu'a la nuit du 30 au 31 du même mois que les Américains ont fait leur retraite 1778.
• 56)Plan général du Fort Septentrional du Detour des Anglois, tel qu'il est présentement : [Louisiana].
• 57)Plan of a rout undertaken in winter, Jany. 26th, from Quebec, the capital of Canada, to the frontier settlements of the Township of Topsham near Brunswick Fort on the *58)River Ammerascaegun in the Province of New Hampshire, Feby. 20th 1760.
• 59)Plan of Carillon ou [sic] Ticonderoga : which was quitted by the Americaines in the night from the 5th to the 6th of July 1777.
• 60)Plan of New Orleans the capital of Louisiana; with the disposition of its quarters and canals as they have been traced by Mr. de la Tour in the year 1720.
• 61)A Plan of the Straits of St. Mary, and Michilimakinac, to shew the situation & importance of the two westernmost settlements of Canada for the fur trade.
• 62)Suite du cours du fleuve St. Louis depuis la rivière d'Iberville jusq'à celle des Yasous, et les parties connues de la Rivière Rouge et la Rivière Noire.
• 63)A survey of Lake Champlain, from Crown Point to Windmil Point, and from thence to St. Iohns.

The Sites

• 1)http://www.northamericanforts.com/West/mn.html
• 2)http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b6700081t.zoom.r=nouvelle+france+.f1.langFR
• 3)http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?ArianeWireIndex=index&f_oai_set=cartes&q=nouvelle+france+&lang=FR&n=15&p=2&pageNumber=20
• 4)http://memory.loc.gov/intldl/fiahtml/fiacollections.html#track2
• 5)http://www.mef.qc.ca/La-Verendrye.htm
• 6)http://books.google.fr/books?id=Jg9jed4meIAC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22fort+la+biche%22&source=bl&ots=VNOYVQTuyw&sig=ISxpOpav8VBW75q55an2dIt9SdA&hl=fr&ei=4a_JS_2FN52VOKfUnI4G&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAYQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=%22fort%20la%20biche%22&f=false
• 7)http://www.forttoulouse.com/pages/ft_events.asp
• 8)http://www.northamericanforts.com/West/westforts.html
• 9)http://rivards.iquebec.com/fortifications_lieux/fortifications_lieux_usa/fortifications_usa.htm
• 10)http://www.crt.state.la.us/parks/iftstjean.aspx

With is important help of : http://memory.loc.gov/intldl/fiahtml/fiacollections.html#track2

YOUR MAP ON THE OTHER HAND AS NO SOURCES AT ALL !

• -Hypersite (talk) 21:57, 26/05/2011 (UTC)

I have removed this map again - Firstly for being french - how do we expect our readers to understand it. Secondly i also have never seen New France going into Texas like this - nor do i think its possible that they have control over lands thousands of miles away from there forts - Its shows them "in-control" of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico - Plus it shows Rupert's land in possession of the French when in fact its was owned by the Hudson's Bay Company from most of the time (What year is this map suppose to be from?).

René Chartrand; Brian Delf (2008). The Forts of New France in Northeast America 1600-1763. Osprey Publishing. pp. 6–. ISBN 9781846032554.

René Chartrand (20 April 2010). The Forts of New France: The Great Lakes, the Plains and the Gulf Coast 1600-1763. Osprey Publishing. p. 7. ISBN 9781846035043.

Moxy (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think much of either map, but the French map is not usable, because: 1) France may have claimed / controlled / claimed to control all of this territory at one time or another, but never all of it at the same time, 2) Many of those territorial claims were disputed by the British, Spanish and Americans, not to mention the native peoples, 3) The listing of source maps above seems to indicate that the Nouvellefrance-V2 map is a composite creation, apparently by user Hypersite(?). If so, it's original research and violates WP:OR. If not, it needs a single authoritative source, 4) It's in French! - WCCasey (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have brought then up for deletion talks - see what others have to say. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nouvellefrance-V2.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:LouisianeFrançaise01.pngMoxy (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Western New France, 1688.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Western New France, 1688.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

story of the people?

This article reads as solely a story of the military.

The saving grace is the maps showing settlements from Britain, from Spain, from France, making it far easier to understand the present day as well as those 17th and 18th century days. Well, I am too harsh, the article is organized by time, and with a fair amount of references. It lacks balance, it lacks an explanation of how those French settlers who farmed did succeed and prosper.

The settlers who did not trade furs are dismissed in a sentence or two, and none are named as individuals. There is reference to a 'Golden age of New France' hidden under a war heading, with no citations. Les Filles du roi are counted at 700 here, no source, but 1,000 in other articles I have seen. Can there be a section on those emigrants from France, who chose to come, to farm, who were not in any penal colony? The battles are written from a British viewpoint, and too much aware of the endpoint, make it sound hopeless all along. New France came to an end but the people descended from those settlers did not disappear on the British winning the Seven Years War. The people lived on, from that small base of French settlers.

Though I am one of those descendants, I learned the full magnitude of it only recently -- that my grandfather, born in Montreal, was descended from all the famous first settlers (not fur traders) who came to New France in the 1600s. Makes me feel grand! Not defeated at all. Is there a place for such text in this piece, or is it ordained to be military in its theme and terms? Even the horrible, brutal removal of the people of Acadia is described dryly as a military necessity and implied to be okay from the lack of any other words on the people. Prairieplant (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a common problem in articles where the bulk of sources are in an other language than that of the article. What is lacking here is a supply of English language sources, or translations from French sources about the topic. Undoubtedly the information you are asking for is available but for the most part written in French with no English translation available. Primary sources regarding New France in English prior to 1759 would for obvious reason tend naturally to be more of a military sort. I don't think there is any lack of will, or lack of interest to include the information you want. Unfortunately it is mostly a matter of a language barrier. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this is a large issue! We need bilingual writers as well as better sources to use for an English language story of a French event. I guess I expected more sources translated. Is it acceptable to use sources in another language for an English Wikipedia article? Presuming the person who cites it understands the text and can put any essential phrases in English, perhaps? Thanks for your reply.Prairieplant (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

there is a large sophisticated recent scholarly literature in English on the social history of New France--key items are listed in the bibliography. That is all that is needed, in my opinion, to overcome the weaknesses. Rjensen (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of good sources in English. Despite the immense geographical areas involved, during that period the amount of people involved was very small and military proportionally played a major role in the endeavors at the time which were mostly fur trading, missionary efforts, Atlantic fishing, claiming/establishing an empire, and military efforts and relationships with the natives related to all of those. Unlike the British colonies which were immensely larger in terms of number of people. North8000 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

One source (in English) that covers everyday life pretty well is "The People of New France" by Allan Greer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000, do you have enough in that book to begin a section that might be title The Golden Age of New France (this is hinted in the War section) or The Settlers of Canada, or something like that? An article on New France ought to mention Louis Hébert, at the least. Mention the recruitments of settlers with specific skills so that the settlements would last, as they did last. Fur trading may have brought money in, but farming fed the settlements. Teachers taught the children, nurses cared for the sick, and so on. Those people were daring, in my view, and resourceful. I do not have books like that on hand, for proper references. My sources are posts on family genealogy sites, with pieces of the story. How the Irishman Thecle or Tec (Tadhg Cornelius) O'Brennan left his troubles in Ireland to settle in Ville Marie or Quebec, took a wife (Jeanne Chartier) from the Filles du Roi, who spelled the name Aubry -- how it sounded to her French ears, and she was literate, he was not. He was a good farmer, they had many children, and now many descendants. He was kidnapped by the Iroquois for 7 months but released, in the time before he met the ship carrying his wife. I will put a heading and one sentence, in hopes those with the good sources can add.

My approach has been that I need to do a sufficient quantity and thoroughness of reading to develop a thorough understanding and then to use that understanding to extract and summarize the material. So far I've done that more on the "overall picture" stuff and the "frontier" stuff away from the few bigger settlements of the time and so this book is/was later in my "progression" The book that I noted does have an immense amount of information in that area (economy, activities, organization, names, physical locations, positions and activities of those in upper/middle and lower "management" ) but not a lot of individual "human interest" stories. Either way, I've not finished the book yet. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Better refs than Hudson's Bay Co. web site as a ref for LaSalle's claim & end of French monopoly?

Hudson's Bay Company web site (history, people at http://www.hbcheritage.ca/hbcheritage/home) is now note #30, used to support the extent of the claim of land for France in North America by Sieur de LaSalle, and also the end of the French monopoly on the fur trade. The web site seems to have been re-organized since first cited. I searched around a bit in the History, People section, and do not see the text to back up those precise points. It may be there, but it does not jump out. Perhaps someone who knows the new site better, and which sort of People (they are grouped in the new site, and there is a url for the text on each person) or exactly which person's text supports the point being made.

It seems to me that other sources might back up the extent of LaSalle's claim of land better than this English fur trading company (they were extravagant with claims on this continent, all those early explorers!). The site is not a dead link, but it is very hard to find where it backs up the points made, so could the original author or someone with better sources help out?

This link has a short version of the history http://www2.hbc.com/hbc/history/ which in turn includes a link to the heritage site used twice in this article. ---Prairieplant (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also a a few issues with the statements and the map. One is that it lists the goal of establishment (of control of an immense geographical area) of a company as the thing ending the monopoly. If it was more than a goal (i.e. legal status granted by the ruling country) then we should clarify that, if not we should dial back the implications in the statement. It also it describes the entire Hudson Bay drainage area as Rupert's land, while the accompanying map identifies an area of only about 1/10th of that drainage area as Rupet's land. We should see which is right and fix. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Moxy has done much in adding sources to the military section, and dropping Hudson's Bay Co as the source for La Salle's claim for Louisiana. The point about the end of the French monopoly on the fur trade remains as it was, and I see your point. The sentence is passive voice (was established), no statement of by whom established. Even more confusing, many French men are cited as helping to establish the HBC. The year that the monopoly ends is not so clear either. It is a monopoly of Europeans using this North American resource for European demand; I assume the indigenous people continued their own hunting for their own purposes. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a try, while also moving that paragraph as its own section under Fur trading. Now that topic of no-monopoly is in the Formal entry of England in New France area fur trade. Dutch were also involved in the fur trade, right? I found the updated links to the Hudson's Bay Co HBC heritage site, so the references take one directly to the relevant text. Feel free to improve it more. I moved the text out of Military, as I did not see how that was a proper intro paragraph to the Military section. I added what I think is a simple intro sentence on how the scene was set for military actions, also ready for your improvements. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The 30,000 view is that the french were dominant (but not a monopoly) all along. The two big factors for the British is that the Hundson bay route (even into the interior) was inherently more efficient / lower cost. Second, after the British "Won" ~1760 they were the bosses and owners but the French were still the main ones doing it. North8000 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Marriageable Girls / Filles à Marier

I was looking for information on the Filles à Marier (Marriageable Girls) and surprised to see there is no mention of them here. I figured it would have it's own section. Might someone with expertise expand on this topic. Here is a reliable source that couldl be used: Gagne, Peter J. (January 1, 2008). Before the King's Daughters: The Filles a Marrier, 1634-1662. Quintin Publications. ISBN 978-1582119328. Morphh ^(talk) 13:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Map

map currently in use for infobox

[[

File:Nouvelle-France_map-en.svg|thumb|100px|map I want to use (which already appears in article)]]

further to this change... @Prairieplant: because the colours of the parts ceded by France to Britain is confusing, especially for the parts on the East of the continent (part of Acadia and Newfoundland). The colours are already in use for parts not ceded. Is there any reason why we can't have the map in two places, really? What is bad about the map I tried to insert, is it too small? If yes, I can change it and upload another version which is only focused on the New France part - the SVG is very easy to change. (On the other hand, it is already better focused than the current map.) Do you think that would be constructive?--BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what SVG means, showing my ignorance. I do not find the map used before you changed it to be confusing, though I understand that you do. For me, that map gives a quick view of the extent of New France, showing that there was a New Spain and a New England in the same era of colonization, even in the small size allowed by the infobox. For the infobox, that is what I want to know from the map without enlarging it -- not all the back and forth with battles between England and France over the lands in North America. One must enlarge the map you prefer to know what purple means. I suppose my preference is a map I have not yet seen, simply the extent of New France, claims and settled areas, at its peak. That is the topic of the article, that it existed, had a large influence on the continent and on two of the largest nations now in North America, but most of it was taken in battle or by treaty by the English or later by the US, with Quebec province as the largest remnant. Most map makers and a lot of those who edit this article seem to be more interested in the destruction and loss of New France, which is what both of these maps have as at least a partial focus. Maybe that other map you mention is what I seek, with its focus on New France, if only I knew what SVG means. Perhaps if I see that map, it will be best of all for the infobox. Thanks for posting to the talk page, I appreciate that. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: I see some maps are also discussed above, with one rejected for original research (not sure how much I agree with that, I think it is as much original research as a Wikipedia article is which meets the WP:OR standards). I also found this one on the French Wikipedia, but it does not have any references. I'll look more this weekend, I think. I think it does make sense to use a map where the largest extent of New France is shown, as using anything else would limit the map's scope to just one time period, whereas the article's scope is all of New France's history.

SVG files are described in technical detail on this Commons help page. I also found a Youtube video which summarises it well for users/readers and people who are just starting with graphic design.

For normal readers of Wikipedia it can be characterised by being able to zoom in without any pixelation, and faster downloading speeds*. For editors, SVG (scalable vector graphics) files are easier to edit and translate (because text and shapes are defined in the file as objects and can be edited by programs like Inkscape). Also, the effects of lossy compression are absent in vector files, although for this image we are discussing now, it is not a factor, because PNG does not use lossy compression (JPEG does it way more).

For the more technically minded, it's characterised by being defined in XML instead of raster pixels. The 'opposite' of vector graphics (SVG) is raster graphics (PNG, GIF, JPEG). I try to promote vector images for maps wherever I can (and so does Commons), because they are easier to edit for future editors once they get past the initial hurdle of finding out what they are and what programs to use.

*(because the files themselves tend to be smaller, though the browser may take longer to render it depending on the complexity of the file. It also only applies when a user goes to the actual file instead of viewing a Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia's servers create a raster rendering of the vector.)

Hope that helps. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: If you happen be familiar with sound formats, a comparison which you will quickly understand is the following. If you aren't familiar with sound formats, this will be nonsense and you might as well ignore it: Vector graphics are to MIDI as raster graphics are to normal sound files (and for specific formats, PNG can be considered similar to FLAC in features; BMP to WAV; and JPG to MP3). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

BurritoBazooka Thanks for explaining SVG. I am not expert, but I have a general idea of it and why you prefer it for maps on Wikipedia. Yes, there is a lot of discussion of maps on this talk page. The main point I got out of that long discussion was a preference for maps that have a citation, that is, not made by an editor. If you removed information from the map to show New France only, would those hackles be raised? Even if that better shows the topic of the article? Photographs taken by an editor and posted for use seem to be okay in articles on places still extant, but maps raise hackles. Maps can be like words, I guess, both elucidating and coming from a point of view. Maybe that is the difference. As territory claims were grandiose in that era (claimed, but no one settled there, and certainly no fences and soldiers to mark the borders of the claim), I do not see why the maps must be more precise than the people of the times were. The reverse was true, also, that places where the French fur traders travelled, those places were not all claimed as New France, and certainly not after the wars, when French fur traders still dominated in English claimed lands.

That is what you proposed, right, to remove the information (color codes and legend) not pertinent to New France itself, still tied to 1750. There is no map by an author showing just New France at its height (which I thought was before 1750), is that the problem? It seems worth a try, with key indicating the map shows only New France. Your skills in graphic design seem major, by the way. ---Prairieplant (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

All that said, I just looked at the French Wikipedia article on this topic. It uses a map made by the guy who signed it, and shows the river drainage areas, far larger than the area shown on any of these maps. In the article, they show a map made in the era (very old, that is to say) showing what the French claimed about 1748. The text of article says in the agreement about Rupert's land, the French did not cede the territory as it had never been part of France! France agreed to the British claim. The map in their infobox is rather simple, and extensive. You can see it by clicking in the left side bar, under the heading Languages, the word Français. Even if you do not read French, the map will be very clear. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

New France: a misnomer

Something is amiss. I believe the actual period of the formal existence of La Nouvelle France is much much shorter than what this website states. It does not agree with my findings in France nor America. The French never mention a New France. Rather, for them it was Le Canada and Le Canada was a land of exile. Colonial policy was handled by their département d'outre mer i.e. their overseas department which applied more or less the same policy in e.g. Canada, French Guiana, Vietnam, Africa, etc... French colonial policy is not pretty. These places were mostly penal colonies and as we can tell from the account of Henri Charriere better known as Papillon, these were terrible places. The wikipedia site on penal colonies admits that the French instituted them in tropical areas; there was a penal colony in French Lousiana. But this applies also to colder climates. The only exception in his policy was Algeria but that is a story in itself. Les Habitants of what is now Quebec are mostly descendents of undesirables from the regions of Bretagne and Normandy, people the French wanted to get rid. Even at the very beginning there was a distinction between Les habitants and French citizens. American historians record that what the Quebecers call New France was in fact a penal colony where the cold brutal Canadian winter and the lanscape served as shackles. There was never a French counterpart of New England which had a certain autonomy and a major investment in infrastructure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.179.52 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a French article on the subject and presumably they'd know best, but the inaccuracies & variance in the maps suggest this may be an amateur work in progress so far. If you have sources detailing the specific administrative changes and dates, by all means, add them in. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Something that does suggest a cleanup or double-check is needed is the mess involved with the Governor General of New France, which is a list of governors general from 1663-1760 but starts off For the list of Governors Generals of New France from 1663 to 1760, see List of Governors Generals of New France. So you click the link to what should and is a duplicate of information, except that the page redirects to List of Governors General of Canada. Meanwhile, you go back to look at the GGNF page, & it starts off "Governor General of New France was the vice-regal post"... contradicting the posters above who got so worked up about someone calling New France a Viceroyalty. Meanwhile, this page, despite theoretically being about the Govs. Gen.'s bailiwick and having a chart demonstrating their position, doesn't link to the GGNF page at all. So... yeah, needs some love, I think. -LlywelynII (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It's an interesting bit of gerrymandering. Of course, the governors under the English crown should not be confused with the governors of the French crown. The list of governors under the French crown lasted until 1760, long before the Lousiana purchase in 1803, gives the period of "New France" at barely 100 years. Mind you, it's the true story of "New France" that was my main point and the records are all in France. A research at the National Library of Paris may very well contain the records telling the true story of Quebec's "underside". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMath (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

New France was a formal name of the viceroyalty, and often Canada was used to mean all of New France. In Québec, people say New France too because saying Canada for the French colony would be quite too confusing.

--ThoMiCroN (t) 23:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoMiCroN (talk • contribs)

Lead seems the right length to me, for such a long article

TJRC The lead of this article is succinct. It does not list each war, but summarizes the change of European claims by the treaties. The economy of New France, described in detail in the article, is not mentioned, nor is the connection between Europeans and the First Peoples. I am removing the flag. Could you be more specific as to what is in the lead that is not in the article, if you still think the lead is too long compared to the article and has facts not mentioned anywhere in the article? --Prairieplant (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Prairieplant. Rjensen (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath section, comparison of population New France, New England what are sources?

I reverted a change that used 1.5 million, the estimate of US population (when there was no US) found at Demographic history of the United States#Historical population for 1760 (but that source was not given with the change, I chanced upon it). The source for the New France population is not clear. My point in reverting and then using a yet lower number for New England only, is that it seems relevant to compare New France to nearby New England, with the same climate, but different sources of people filling it up. The two settlements had the same reason for good population growth, large families, and general good health of the population with plentiful food sources and good farming. New France limited its settlers to Catholics, while New England took in many Protestant sects. I am not sure of the source for "including French Huguenots" that is, French Protestants, in New England or any other portion of the 13 colonies that became the US after New France was under British control. The comment seems a touch sarcastic or judgmental, and unsourced. Later in the same article, New England's population is estimated for 1790, not 1760, at 700,000, and sourced to the book by Howard S. Russell. I copied that source -- but I have not seen that book, so that is a bit risky. There is not a page ref in that Demographic history article for the population estimate. The preceding explains the revert and change, I hope. Still another source is needed to support the next statement of it being easier for the settlers in the British North American colonies to organize for battle. That is a fairly broad point, and it is unsourced, now flagged. A further, broad point of mine is that this article needs to keep to a New France focus, given that is its topic. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: Dear Prairieplant;

Thank you for your edits, and also for the summary you added above. It all makes good sense to me, even though the population estimates between the two areas are out by 30 years; the fact that you reworded the New England estimate to "about ten times" is better than the earlier estimate, and can always be refined later if another editor finds a verifiable estimate for 1760. I have ordered the Howard S. Russell book (A Long, Deep Furrow: Three Centuries of Farming in New England.) today and, when it's been delivered in a couple of weeks' time, I will verify the estimate of 700,000 and add the page number to the ref tags, in both articles (i.e., this one and New England).

Thank you once again for your excellent approach and contributions to our encyclopedia.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alexander Domanda: Dear Alexander,
[CC: @Prairieplant:]
Thank you for your latest edits, here and here. As you may not have seen in the comments above, our colleague Prairieplant chose to compare only the New England population estimate with that of New France, and therefore used the Howard S. Russell book as a reference for the estimated population of 700,000 in New England. Since you seem intent on comparing the entire population of the Thirteen Colonies, then please note that you will therefore need to replace the current ref tag (for Russell's book) with a ref tag for the census on which you're relying for the "fifteen times / more than 1 million". If you were going to update the ref tag in the near future anyway, then please forgive me for pointing this out before you were ready.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 16:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Pdebee Thanks for your kind words. I found the source for the Quebec population in 1760, following the hints from @Alexander Domanda: about an on-line source from Montreal. If you can find the page number for the New England population that would be great. All the population numbers would then have a reliable source, and there is some sense in mentioning them at this point in the article, describing the moment when New France is no longer ruled by France but by Great Britain, while maintaining its French culture and character, and speculating as to why history happened as it did. I modified the words to match the numbers with their new sources. The more I read the Aftermath section, the more it seems to need a more consistent thread, logical paragraph breaks, and a better way to describe the French/English European competition as well as what was happening in the colonies in North America, with more of a view of how it looked from the New France perspective. The expulsion from Acadia was more than a military action, but I do not have good sources for that. Numbers alone never guarantee military victories, not now, and certainly not then in the colonial era. Nor will some unknown Huguenots, likely torn between nation and religion ever be the sole reason that New France fell to the British. I am wondering why those Huguenots are mentioned, instead of saying, if it is not already said, that France limited the settlers in New France to Catholics, a possible contributing reason for the difference in size of the two neighboring colonies, New England and New France. Both colonies grew rapidly in the 18th century, despite all those battles. Well enough of that, the opening paragraph is slowly getting better. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I will fix the population stats over the next few days...sources at Population of Canada. -- Moxy (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: Dear Prairieplant,
[CC: @Alexander Domanda and Moxy:]
Thank you for your reply, above; yes, as soon as I receive the Russell book, I'll provide the page number(s) to strengthen that ref tag. I'll keep you posted on my progress with this.
Thank you also for all your recent edits to this section of the article, which is improving all the time. While I am passing by, please forgive me for offering my 2cents'/penny's worth , motivated by your latest edit summary: "Still not clear to me why population comparison is to all 13 Brit colonies, rather than New England alone."
As you know, our colleagues Alexander and Moxy have contributed that aspect of the prose as well as improving the sources, while you have provided a specific comparison between New France and New England, as these two are directly comparable (similar climate, etc.). Well, if it helps, I daresay our readers will value both sets of stats, as they give an excellent idea of population dynamics between these three constituencies: New France, New England and the Thirteen Colonies.
Please keep up your good work, and thank you once again for all your contributions to our encyclopedia.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 11:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved three paragraphs about the French and Indian War out of Aftermath, into the War subsection, and moved the paragraph about the treaties into its own section, so that Aftermath is now following the treaties of cession by France to England and Spain. Looking over the whole article, might we move Historiography just following Aftermath? And put all the Legal system sections before the sections on the end of New France? Would that be a more logical flow for the article? --Prairieplant (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060111053009/http://gallica.bnf.fr:80/FranceAmerique/page.asp?/en/T1-1-Intro.htm? to http://gallica.bnf.fr/FranceAmerique/page.asp?/en/T1-1-intro.htm?

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked the new link on Wayback machine, but all that appears is a page in French saying the page wanted was not archived. What to do? Cannot talk to this handy bot, to say, yes there is a link, but it is not to the page once found. So I did not change checked from false to true, as I checked it but the new link is still in essence a dead link. This is the first time I encountered this, from this wonderful bot. Better ideas? --Prairieplant (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Green C bot did a second try on August 31, but the citation still points to a page not found, thought that is written in French. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

TAG FOR MISSING SIZE

I am not sure having a tag at the top of the article for something that cant be sourced with any real certainty is a good idea. We have looked many times before...French never got to do a real survey....as the territory changed so often. Only real numbers we have are for the LO purchase. -- Moxy (talk)

Moxy Someone had 8 million (units not provided) in the infobox "|stat_year1 =1712 |stat_area1 = 8000000 |stat_pop1 = " (that is, no entry for population). Then another editor deleted those three lines. I suggested adding a note, citation needed, next to stat area1 entry. The other editor put the tag instead of using the citation needed flag. Does anyone know the source of the estimate for the year 1712? It seems helpful to have even a rough estimate, given all the different maps and misunderstandings of the vast land claims so common in the early colonial eras. If the area is not known, that seems worth a sentence somewhere in the article, if no number is entered in the infobox or the text. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The other editor was me. I didn't want to add a citation needed note because those break the formatting of the infobox, and from experience we're unlikely to get a source that way anyway. The figure dates back to an edit from 12 May 2013, but was the paired with the year 1750, not 1712. The year was changed by the next edit. Neither provided a source. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, I have seen and removed a different unsourced figure dating back to 15 October 2009. That one claimed the greatest extent to have been in 1754. TompaDompa (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Should we split this up a bit

I have noticed that some editors like to link to our very undeveloped Canada New France article like we do for Acadia and French Louisiana...perhaps best some info that covers "Canada" should be moved. We could then being the development of the Canada article. As of now this article is a bit messed up because of the mismatch in use of terms....for example New France was not discoverd in 1534...that was Canada...Cartier charter metions New France discoverd and named by that Italian guy lol.Moxy (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is really an article defined by a term. And this is a term that existed (only) for a certain time period. Not that I have the answer, but that is the fundamental complexity. For example, regarding history, all of the history could be considered as a part of either US or Canadian history. But neither of those countries existed at the time, and also the continent was divided up differently back then. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you but I am having the problem that others don't get it. I have tried to explain what you have said many many times....but still having this parent article unlinked for the Canada New France article. Some have this odd notion that Canadian history starts with a place name not an area. Guess I will take the time to expand the other article. Just hard to watch people being linked to no information....I don't want to have to follow a new editor to the topic all over.--Moxy (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That debate may also revolve around definitions. I think that the meaning of "Canada" in that article (I believe essentially a sub-set of New France, a historical, not current entity) is very different than the current meaning of Canada. So the two "Canada's" are very different terms. I just took a quick look at the debate there and maybe the dispute arises from you applying the current meaning of "Canada" rather than the article-subject's meaning. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is exactly what that (Canada, New France) article is about, clearly. So, agreed. The title of that article is "Canada (New France)", and begins with "Canada was a French colony which was first discovered and claimed on 24 July 1534...". We could adjust it to "Canada was a French colony within New France..." to make it clearer if we wish.

The evolution is fairly simple. Canada, since its discovery, naming, and claiming by the French was a region along the St-Lawrence (then known as the Canada River) whose inhabitants were known as "Canadians" (as opposed to the Acadians, for example). This territory (Canada) and its people (the Canadians) were handed over from French to British control in 1763 who briefly called the now British colony "Quebec" for over 20 years before the region resumed the name of Canada (The Canadas, United Province of Canada). So from 1534 to 1867 this region was known as "Canada" and was inhabited by "Canadians". In 1867 Canada joined with two other colonies (as can be seen here with the "Union of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and the government thereof") to form a British colony known as the Dominion of Canada. By 1931 Canada went from a colony to a state equal with the UK, and by 1982 to a fully sovereign and independent state. Thus, the region along the "Canada River" (St-Lawrence) known as Canada and inhabited by Canadians has been continuously covered by the Canadian polity and its people for roughly 500 years (by claim and by name, obviously the first settlement that made it through to permanency was not until Quebec City in 1608).

Or, in summary: Canada (French colony, 1534-1763) --> Quebec (British colony, 1763-1791) --> Canada (British colony, 1791-1841) --> Canada (British colony, 1841-1867) --> Dominion of Canada (British colony 1867-1931) --> Canada (sovereign state, 1931-present). The Canada article is the parent article to all of those just mentioned, as its focus is the Canada of today yes, but covers Canada's history holistically, summarizing everything from the French colony of Canada to the present day. trackratte

This article (New France) is not specific to Canada as it occupied most of North America, and is thus equally American history. It also encompassed a variety of colonies, such as Louisiana for example, which never became part of the History of Canada, in the same way as a large portion of British North America (ie the Thirteen Colonies) are not part of Canadian history but instead of American history. Which is to say that this article's scope is quite broad, and simply extends beyond Canada. This, in the same way as when discussing the history of Louisiana in the 1600s and 1700s we would say "Louisiana, New France", and not just "New France", when discussing the French colony of Canada we would say "Canada, New France", and not just New France. Obviously, if "New France" has just been previously blue-linked in the same section or paragraph, just Canada (New France) need to be linked as saying and linking "New France" again is redundant and also a case of over-linking. trackratte (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (in response to North8000): Not sure what your saying....I don't think they are the same thing. ...in fact my point is they are not even close to the same thing. I guess I am simply not good at explaning myself. We have an editor that thinks use of the term Canada should be used and linked instead of New France in our history articles. This leads our readers to an article with zero info on the time period they are referring to. My sugestion is that we expand the Canada article so we don't have to revert the change from New France to Canada all over.--Moxy (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with about 98% of Trackratte's analysis, but the other 2% might be the actual point in contention. Is it about internal links at the "Canada (New France)" article? IMO both links to Canada and New France would be fine, but the link to New France would be more useful to the readers. New France was the geographic framework for the historical entity which is the subject of the article, and is necessary to fully understanding the article or expanding upon what is learned in it. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(copied from Canada (New France) talk) North, as far as I'm aware this is not about internal links within the French colony of Canada article. If it is, this is the first time I'm hearing of it. My understanding of Moxy's point are the links from other articles linking to that article. But if we are interpreting Moxy's issue in two completely different ways, then it's obviously not even clear what, exactly, it is we are even attempting to resolve. trackratte (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits like this imply that Canadian history starts with a place name. Unfortunately this is not how Canadian history is covered. ...we do not exclude pre history or other parts of Canada that are part of Canada today. Our history did not start with a name. This has been explained by others better and edits fixed all over so all looks ok to me now. I will work on the Canada new france article over the next few weeks so our readers get some use out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy, ...what does that have to do with anything? You're linking to a completely different article than this one (ie beyond the scope of this talk page). Second, the edit you linked to clearly speaks to Canadian pre-history in the lead paragraph (the second sentence), so your comment that "we do not exclude pre history" is what exactly? It doesn't follow because it was never excluded by anyone. Third, Canadian history doesn't exist prior to the existence of Canada, as you yourself just acknowledged, history of the lands thousands of years ago that Canada later occupied is "pre-history", ie history prior to the establishment of Canada.

For example, see the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the History of Canada, which starts with Canadian "Prehistory to early European contact", and begins the section on the establishment of New France with "Frenchman Jacques Cartier was the first European to navigate the great entrance to Canada, the Saint Lawrence River. In 1534", and also speaks to the Company of New France operating in "Acadia as well as Canada". As a solid example, the history portion of Britannica's lead to the Canada article is as follows: "In the 16th century, French explorer Jacques Cartier used the name Canada to refer to the area around the settlement that is now Quebec city. Later, Canada was used as a synonym for New France, which, from 1534 to 1763, included all the French possessions along the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes. After the British conquest of New France, the name Quebec was sometimes used instead of Canada. The name Canada was fully restored after 1791, when Britain divided old Quebec into the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada (renamed in 1841 Canada West and Canada East, respectively, and collectively called Canada). In 1867 the British North America Act created a confederation from three colonies (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada) called the Dominion of Canada. The act also divided the old colony of Canada into the separate provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Dominion status allowed Canada a large measure of self-rule, but matters pertaining to international diplomacy and military alliances were reserved to the British crown. Canada became entirely self-governing within the British Empire in 1931, though full legislative independence was not achieved until 1982, when Canada obtained the right to amend its own constitution." Obviously room for improvement (such as New France and Canada were initially a synonym but were not afterwards with the separate standup of the colonies of Hudsons Bay, Acadia, and Louisiana), however the gist is similar, and provides a good example of what history the lead covers in a professional encyclopedia.

As a corollary point, this is not just about a name that coincidentally happens to be the same as a country known as Canada today, for as I outline above there is a clear and direct line of evolution, ie the specific area of North America named "Canada" in 1534 remained known as Canada continuously until 1867, from which point the area known as Canada expanded (and the number of "Canadians" as well) to the geographical extent it is today. Second, the people inhabiting this region were the "Canadians", for example John A. Macdonald was a Canadian as an MP in the Legislature of Canada arguing for Confederation in the 1860s (for example see here for a photo of the Canada Gazette 1841, or a quote from the Government of Canada: "the Government reinforced the new Province of Canada as the successor to the old provinces of Upper and Lower Canada"; or this academic journal: "through the Constitutional Act, 1791 that evolved, in a direct and unbroken line, into the modern Canadian state). Another example is the people in Quebec City, which has been in Canada since its founding in 1608, called themselves and were called "Canadians" in the 1600s and continue to do so today. Additionally,a 1732 definition of Canadian: "Un Canadien est un homme né en Canada" (A Canadian is a person born in Canada). trackratte (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere with this post, just talking. There isn't an innate hierarchy to material, so it is always through the lens of a particular organizing plan. In Wikipedia this means that there is no ideal methodology that fully avoids overlaps. Possibly your preferred methodology is organizing historical coverage by by geography, divided by present day national borders, possibly especially when there is the continuity that you describe. Another could say that when you have entities like New France that are large spatially and temporally to cover them as an entity and subsets of them more in the context of that entity. I sort of lean towards the latter as a way to best help people learn the big picture. And, of course, one can do both. :-) North8000 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the way it is currently set up organizationally makes sense, in that Canada deals with the topic holistically, whereas Canada (New France), the Canadas, and United Province of Canada all deal with these specific subsets of information pertaining specifically to these politics in both space (geography) and time (the respective dates of their existence), all of which are of course linked together. Other supporting articles such as New France and British North America deal with the wider structure in which these subsets were (at the time) part of, which of course are themselves subsets within the wider topics of France and United Kingdom/British Empire. Which can be visualised as overlapping circles within circles as a visual depiction of this concept. The point being that in terms of linking, names have meaning and if we are talking about a specific subset, we should refer to that article, ie linking to the Canadas as opposed to British North America or even Canada if we are talking about the Canadian people or the St-Lawrence region in the early 1800s, as of course this region and the people who lived there were part of this specific polity at that time.

Regardless, specific to this talk page regarding this article (New France), I'm not entirely sure what the relevant issue is at present, as we are all talking very generally about the organization of topics and how these various articles fit together.

So, is there a specific issue for this page that requires discussion, or are we all in basic agreement regarding this topic? Or is their something specific that needs working on here?trackratte (talk)

Regarding this article, there are no issues bothering me, and I don't have any advice regarding changes. Regarding, the Canada (New France) article, there are no issues that are bothering me,and advice I have for changes, possibly that would be to delete the article and move the material elsewhere. Most of the text seems to be on topics other than the the subject of the article, and the sources (at a quick glance) don't seem to be directly about the the subject off the article as such. Also if it is not possible to even include a map of the subject of the article (which those two maps aren't) you gotta wonder.... Again, these are just volunteered thoughts, not anything that I have an issue with. North8000 (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Moxy which article do you want to change? This article, New France, or the one called Canada (New France) or some other article? This one, New France, seems to be coming along bit by bit, and has a decent outline now, in my view. I have not worked on the Canada (New France) article; it reads well, but is short, as you or someone said. If the issue is about links, where a link should point, that might be over my head. If you are concerned about the structure or the introduction of this article, New France, could you be more specific? My own goals have been to dampen the British view point of this article; just because they won the wars in the end, does not mean that view point should dominate in this article, as this is about New France for the time it existed, before the Brits won the territory. I tried to follow this discussion, hope I have followed it. Is there something you want other editors to do, to improve the whole set of articles about Canada, its history, its present day status? --Prairieplant (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@North, I think it would be best to maintain the Canada (New France) article for the same reason to maintain the Canadas, the Louisiana (New France), or the United Province of Canada articles as they are specific to these polities, whereas New France is more general and covers Canadian, Acadian, Louisian-ian, and American history more generally, so I think it helpful to maintain these more specific articles, which themselves can be expanded over time. I agree for the maps, there are contemporary maps from the 1500s (an Italian one with "Canada" on it) and from the 1600s. We could always create a Wikipedia rendition of these maps if required if one does not already exist.

@Prairie, I agree with you. These articles should focus on their respective subjects from a contemporary point of view specific to their respective points in time of existence, not superimposing today's current situation backwards in time (ie a revisionist point of view). trackratte (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

First Nations people and Indian and indigenous peoples

Both of these terms are used in the article, Indians more often than First Nations. Also I noticed that indigenous people is used as well, in parts of the article. Maybe a decision on the best wording, to address the one by one edits of Indians to First Nations? Maybe some the other way too. One such change was just made, Indians to First Nations people. I let it stand, noticing that it is not consistent in the article and might need a few editors to agree on the choice. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding indigenous people, "First Nations" is not broad enough even in Canada and also certainly not in the US, and a substantial portion of the US was a part of New France. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

North8000 Does that mean you think we should avoid the term First Nation peoples, unless the sentence refers specifically to a portion of Canada? On the other hand, should it always be indigenous people, avoiding both Indians and First Nation people? I had thought, without reading much about it, that Canada called all the people there before the Europeans arrived, First Nation people. So that is not the case. In the US, folks seem to like Indians, more than Native Americans, so I think that is not a settled term. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes it excludes Metis and Inuit. I stopped short of a recommendation because then it gets complicated. The PC rule book conflicting with accuracy. I would suggest indigenous people, and the more specific (tribes, language groups) terms where possible.

You are are incorrect in saying that "First Nations" excludes Metis and Inuit. The term is used in Canada to refer to all the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, not just those within the modern borders of Canada. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

See First Nations and its sources.North8000 (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Supreme court ruled on April 14, 2016; that the Metis are "Indians" according to the Canadian Constitution, and have the same status and rights.<ref>http://globalnews.ca/news/2639115/supreme-court-rules-metis-non-status-indians-get-same-rights-as-first-nations/</erf> As far as the Canadian government is concerned there is no such distinction. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

pls read--Moxy (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Mediatech, regarding your 12:06 post, that reflects on granting the Metis the same privileges. Well, now y'all can see why I said I "stopped short of a recommendation". :-) All should feel free to ignore or go with anything I said. I'm not going to respond further on this here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Best those unaware of the usage of common terms do some basic research First Nations.--Moxy (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Moxy This is a quote from your link, which makes me think North8000 gave good advice on using indigenous people unless we can name a specific tribe. That source uses aboriginal rather than indigenous, but why add yet another term to this article?

"First Nation: A term that came into common usage in the 1970s to replace the word "Indian," which some people found offensive. Although the term First Nation is widely used, no legal definition of it exists. Among its uses, the term "First Nations peoples" refers to the Indian peoples in Canada, both Status and non-Status. Some Indian peoples have also adopted the term "First Nation" to replace the word "band" in the name of their community."

Do you have recommendations on the terms to use to be consistent in the various sections of the article? --Prairieplant (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous is fine, ..--Moxy (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New France. 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/20160303232947/http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/Francais/ministere/histoire/structures.htm to http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/francais/ministere/histoire/structures.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Checked the link, seems to be the correct page found by Wayback machine. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

State Identity

There seems to be disagreement over what information is pertinent to the various sections of an infobox. Does Religion imply all religions practiced within the state? Does Language include all the languages spoken in the specified country? Where is the line drawn? Ernio48 wants to list Calvinism under the religion section for the Huguenots, but is this appropriate? My understanding was that the religion section is meant to reflect the state religion. - Conservatrix (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I expect to see the religion of those who came from France in the infobox. Listing animism as the religion of all the First Nations seemed flip, and possibly insulting, as well as not relevant. The point is made in the article that one possible reason that the settled population of New France grew much less than the settled population of New England, a nearby place with similar climate and natural resources, was that France was insisting on the settlers being Catholics, the state religion of France for a period of history. It that is true, that settlement growth was restricted by religious limits, that makes religion relevant in describing New France. France, like all of Europe, went though many painful wars of religion once there was a great split from the Roman Catholic church to many variations under the name Protestants, and not all French people ended up as Roman Catholics when those wars ended. I see a similar logic for language, as the language of those administering the colony was French, even as various French people in New France made dictionaries of the languages of the peoples they encountered to enhance communication.

I really do not want to see animism in the list religions! The topic of the religions practiced by the First Nations people is not really the topic of this article; there is not a section about how the French dealt with the people already living there, as to religion, including missionary work, and the tolerance of the existing practices. I would suspect that the tribes in New France had religions as varied as the tribes who were long settled in the southwest of the US, and I would not dismiss them with the term animism. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Official only......all the link including the Official one does zero to help readers understand this topic. No point in jamming unhelpfully links in the box.--Moxy (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That was my understanding too, although I recently found out I was mistaken and the parameter is "free choice, do what you want". I'm fine with leaving only Roman Catholicism there and restricting all other religions to "Religious life" section I made in the article text.Ernio48 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I made a section regarding this "religion =" parameter on the official template page (so there would be only state religions placed there), but it was somehow rejected. I propose someone should place "< ! - - comment - - >" in that parameter, clearly noting in comment that "This parameter is reserved for state religion, see talk page. For any other religions add information to the appropriate section in the article." or so, so there won't be any future misunderstandings.Ernio48 (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

lowercase sigmabot III

Greetings! I would like to establish lowercase sigmabot III on this talk page to manage the discussion backlog. Please post your thoughts, support or objections below so that we might reach consensus. Thank you. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure why not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done 48hrs no objections. – Conservatrix (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

External links

Move excessive links for possible discussion on inclusion or deletion per WP:ELPOINTS and WP:ELMIN.

• New France: 1524–1763
• Archives Canada-France. Digitisation project of the National Archives of Canada and France
• Seven Years War timeline
• World Digital Library presentation of Descripsion des costs, pts., rades, illes de la Nouuele France faict selon son vray méridien, or Description of the Coasts, Points, Harbours and Islands of New France. Library of Congress.
• Map of French Empire in 1683

--- Otr500 (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I would keep the very first item here New France: 1524–1763 Which is a valuable chronology of details not in the article. I would drop the others. Rjensen (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I left four on the article. Is there one there that could be replaced by the suggestion to maintain somewhat of a minimum? Otr500 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Inuit in East Florida in infobox?

Hello Lieutcoluseng, at this change here you added Inuit singular after Inuits plural, and indicated those were the people in East Florida as part of New France. Just how did that work? The Inuit at the link Inuit are people of the far north, not Florida of any shape that I know Florida to have taken over time, in the hot south of North America. The southern limit for the Inuit, per the Wikipedia article, was Labrador. Please explain this to me! --Prairieplant (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC) --Prairieplant (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Viceroyalty status

I'm wondering why this articles states this territory was also known as the French North American Empire or Royal New France, but I have never seen those references before. New France was declared province royale in 1663 in order to boost the demographic and economic development of the colony, but that was the only reference I could find. Also, I have seen plenty of references of the 'Viceroyalty of New France' (vice-royauté) on documents in French (from Quebec or France), but not here (just a little one in the side box). Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleqc (talk • contribs) 00:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Aleqc, The term Viceroyalty of the Kingdom of France is in the infobox, that boxed summary that shows the flags, coat of arms, location on the globe, etc. as you noted, but not elsewhere in the text. It is not mentioned in the opening sentence of the lead section, where the other two phrases are present. Looking in the References, there are some authors who use French North American Empire in their title, but no one has put those references as a source in the lead. The term empire is used throughout the article, though never cited to any of those books. Royal New France is an odd term, used only in the first sentence of the lead. Perhaps your information about the change in 1663 could be worked into the section titled Royal takeover and attempts to settle, with a source to substantiate the year. Idle thoughts, is Royal New France someone's awkward translation of viceroyalty? --Prairieplant (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)