Talk:Newfoundland and Labrador

Dispute about Infobox content

An issue has come up: should the infobox to this article contain the field "government_type", filled in with "Parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Since this issue affects all ten provinces and the three territories, a Request for Comment has been started on the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board. If you interested in this issue, please come to the Notice Board and contribute to the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I am unable to locate this discussion, which seems to be recent. What in the world else would you call it? Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind; I did find this Elinruby (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"Talamh an Éisc agus Labradar" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Talamh an Éisc agus Labradar and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Talamh an Éisc agus Labradar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 19:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Degree of autonomy as a dominion

A couple of days ago I edited the "Reform and Fisherman's Union" to tone down what I felt was an overenthusiastic description of just how independent the dominions were in 1907, which was then reverted with the justification that the previous wording matches the cited source. So I had a look at the cited source, and ... no, it does not. The source describes a dominion as "a self-governing state of the British Empire or British Commonwealth", whereas the article says "a self-governing state within the association of states referred to as the British Empire or British Commonwealth", thereby making it sound like the British Empire in 1907 was a voluntary international organisation in which the dominions enjoyed equality with the British government (five years after the end of a war in which Canada, though not so far as I know Newfoundland, had participated with the rest of the Empire in fighting for the proposition that membership in the British Empire was not voluntary). The article says that "the British monarch remained the 'sovereign' but the crown's authority was exercised through the Newfoundland cabinet accountable solely to the legislature in St. John's" whereas the source says only that "Newfoundland was relatively autonomous from British rule" and "negotiated its own trade agreement with the United States (which was later blocked by the British government)". I would contend that the only way to read the article's wording is that the government of Newfoundland was in the hands only of Newfoundlanders, to the exclusion of London, which is actually contradictory to the source's wording of "relatively autonomous" and to the fact that the only instance of Newfoundland conducting its own foreign policy that the source can cite is negotiating a trade agreement that never went into effect because the Westminster Parliament vetoed it against the Newfoundland government's wishes.

(If anything, my edits brought the article closer to the source, if still leaving a greater emphasis on Newfoundland independence, since I left in the bit about "solely accountable to the legislature in St. John's." The only change I made not supported by the source is removing the reference to the Commonwealth of Nations, which I would still maintain is anachronistic in the context of 1907.)

I would propose this wording, which preserves what actually is in the source even if I object to it while removing the unsupported promotion of the idea that Newfoundland, or any other dominion, was essentially a fully independent state with diplomatic and legal equality with the United Kingdom prior to the First World War: In 1907, Newfoundland acquired dominion status, or self-government, within the British Empire or British Commonwealth. Government of Newfoundland was conducted mostly by a cabinet accountable solely to the legislature in St. John's, subject only to occasional interference from the Crown, as when the British government vetoed a trade agreement Newfoundland had negotiated with the United States.{{refname="mapleweb"/> Binabik80 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Binabik80 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Having received no pushback, I am making the changes. Binabik80 (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this correction ManfredHugh (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Trabajo

Quisiera optar por una propuesta de. Trabajo 2800:98:1012:B389:F943:231:DBA8:A74A (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Minstrel shows under #Theatre

I am moving this discussion here from Nikkimaria's talk page. @Magnolia677: and @Nikkimaria: I am curious what you feel is undue about all of the sentences which were removed. I am not in the business of edit warring; please leave HxFact's original edits intact while we discuss this so they stay open for more constructive changes while we discuss this. I am also happy to take a stab based on your comments. --Utl jung (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I have clarified in response to your comment on my talk page that WP:BRD (an optional policy appropriate for some situations and not for others) forecloses constructive edits by other editors. Yet you have once again gone in with further destructive changes while I have started discussion and pinged you directly. If you feel that HxFact's edits "cherrypick facts" then you are welcome to elaborate within this discussion and bring your own sources, or better yet, write additions yourself to those sections. You have yet to articulate your objections in good faith to reach consensus. This is in bad faith and I ask that you leave the edits alone. I will be undoing your destructive changes. Please engage in discussion as you yourself requested, instead of relying on an optional policy ill-advised for the current situation to shift the burden of proof. --Utl jung (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Utl jung: My concern is that you have never edited this article before today. Then suddenly, after an editor who appears to be from Toronto based on their sandbox edits, and has only made 10 total edits to Wikipedia--all to this article--gets their edits reverted...you suddently appear. You have already declared a conflict of interest on your talk page because you work for the university library in Toronto; what is your connection to this editor? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: First, I'd like to be clear then that your comment contains no substantive objection to edits, which avoids the purpose of this discussion entirely. I ask that you stay on topic instead of resorting to character assassination. FWIW, in my position I facilitate informed contribution to Wikipedia at local edit-a-thons and by students and researchers at my institution. I've been keeping an eye on this page because there are classes running with focus on Black Canadian history, and editors contributing perfectly verifiable and notable historical content in this terrain tend to run into bad-faith editors who make life extremely complicated for them for reasons that often have nothing to do with substance. Which brings us full circle: Please share your substantive qualms about why the edits you keep reverting are undue. I am trying to work with you here. --Utl jung (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Utl jung: Let me see if I have this straight. You work at the University of Toronto Library, where you facilitate contributions to Wikipedia. A student at the university made an edit to this article, and you assisted this student...by reverting two experienced editors who disagreed with the student's edit. Is this correct? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am here as an experienced editor to contribute to good process and good content, as the discussion thus far shows. I am still willing to help integrate substantive feedback and will gladly continue this discussion once I see those specifically -- and for now, will leave the paragraph in question with some minor stylistic edits. I do not appreciate Magnolia677's use of red herrings which distract from the topic of discussion. I will not be responding to jabs and will be escalating any further harassment which ignores all of my good faith attempts and repeat requests to keep to relevant discussion. Thanks. --Utl jung (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Utl jung: Edit warring on behalf of one of your students appears to be a conflict of interest. Will you revert your edits? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You misaccuse me of "edit warring" which you yourself instigated after my attempts to prevent it by starting discussion and pinging you. You also misunderstand WP:COI, which is not solely about whether external roles and relationships exist. Said external relationships must be impinging on how someone edits, and here my institutional affiliation and how it may influence judgment has nothing to do with the content in question. By clear evidence to which you have offered no objection, 1) NL's history of minstrelsy and slave trade have a place in an article on NL regardless of whether I or anyone else are at the University of Toronto, and 2) intervening to question sweeping destructive changes to verifiable and notable contributions is not "edit warring on behalf of one of [my] students". How many times on this thread have I solicited substantive feedback? Where have you actually responded with any? Judging by your talk page, this is not the first time you are hounding other editors with destructive edits. Desist, and please return to this thread only if you have relevant, civil, substantive comments to offer. --Utl jung (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Utl jung, I would ask that you revert your edits, not because of the COI issue but rather because it's up to those seeking to include disputed content to get consensus for it, and that has not yet been achieved.

The issue with the content restored here is that it is undue weight for this specific article. This article is meant to be a summary of every facet of N&L, and so cannot appropriately go into detail on what is essentially a sub-sub-subtopic. That material may reasonably constitute part of an article on Theatre of Newfoundland and Labrador, which could detail the history and various genres of theatre in the province. Alternatively or additionally an article could be created specifically on The Rossleys. But the Culture section is in general in need of rationalization rather than expansion.

With regards to this edit: the content does not seem to be particularly relevant to this article, given that AFAICT Olivier Le Jeune was never in what is now N&L but rather Quebec. If there is something to suggest he was in N&L I'd be interested in seeing that. If not, I would agree that should be excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. These are thoughtful suggestions and I'm with you on edits needing due weight for the scope of the article. For that same reason, I also want to be clear me reverting my edits is counterproductive to achieving due weight. "Due weight" is itself a consensus-based quality; respectfully, I disagree that your revert got us there! I should mention WP:ONUS leaves us deep in circular reasoning since the "dispute" here is partly about your move to revert swiftly and outright in place of appropriate discussion. Rather punishing when the editor is new and still actively contributing to the page.

I have re-summarised #Blackface minstrelsy shows. Details left in--previously made unavailable by a revert--give important but minimal context for their performances and popularity in NL/St. John's. They also mirror the level of detail seen in other sub-sub-sub-points throughout the rest of the article. For any further reduction, I ask that you please tag any particular sentences/parts of sentences in question {{Undue weight inline}} and allow time for changes and discussion. I am a fan of relative judgment that accounts for linked articles and surrounding content. I do agree that it would, at some point, be good to have a dedicated article on Theatre of Newfoundland and Labrador and/or The Rossleys. Perhaps then, this section summary could further reduce and house a "Main article" link.

My contribution aside, I am keen to allow editors active on the page, including @HxFact:, some time to take these suggestions into account. We have many options for dealing with WP:UNDUE and unexplained reversion was a particularly hostile way to go about it. When was any clear feedback, sufficient time, or explicit cue (tags, talk page messages, etc.) granted to editors? A thorny process is not fun and I don't think the article is improved much by it, even if it's expedient for some.

As for WP:3RR which you mentioned on your talk page (appreciate you tying up that loose end) -- I think it's worth recapping the order, timing, and reasons for reverts to put my part in perspective:

• (diff) Nikkimaria reverts Hxfact ("rm undue"). No discussions started in either user or article talk, so not in WP:BRD or any alternatives. "Undue" is consensus-based and not self-explanatory. So far, a revert without informative WP:REVEXP.
• (diff) Utl_jung reverts Nikkimaria, disputing scale of destructive change on Nikkimaria's talk page, flags discussion in edit summary.
• (diff) Magnolia677 reverts Utl_jung, disregarding linked discussion. This is now a re-revert (WP:BRR) and WP:SQS.
• (diff) Utl_jung reverts Magnolia677 and expands discussion on article talk. Pings both Nikkimaria and Magnolia677.
• (diff) Magnolia677 reverts Utl_jung, disregarding linked and pinged discussion. Clear and unwarranted continuation of WP:SQS and WP:BRR.
• (diff) Magnolia677 reverts another edit by Hxfact. At this point, has hit WP:3RR.
• (diff) Utl_jung reverts Magnolia677's undiscussed re-reverts, with note requesting they join discussion as requested. Hits WP:3RR.

Will watch for further comments; I may also chime in with more. I haven't had a good look at the Olivier Le Jeune edit yet, so I can come back to that if someone else doesn't get to it before. I did ping HxFact above as well. --Utl jung (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest at this point that whatever behavioural concerns you two may have about each other, they are better addressed elsewhere so that this section can focus on the content at issue.

That being said, I cannot agree with your assertions regarding the appropriate next steps here. The content was added, and was disputed - ONUS makes no distinction as to whether that dispute is expressed via reversion or discussion, and BRD (while an essay) indicates that the burden for opening discussion is with the bold editor. The fact that the editor is new means they may need to be guided through the consensus-forming process, which does not include restoring the content at this point but rather discussing it.

As I noted above, I agree that other parts of the section would benefit from rationalization. I will make an attempt at doing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

History

Should Canada's worst airplane disaster (Arrow Air Flight 1285) be included in the history section?

Should Newfoundland's response to 9-11 be included in the history section?136.36.180.215 (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)