Talk:List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada

external link

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

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

LOL - the state taht gave us Frank Murkowski and Sarah Palin wants to join Soviet Canuckistan??Skookum1 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Alaska is more Canadian than any other American state and has been claimed as the "lost province", which I completely agree with. Look at other postings elsewhere on the internet about this proposal..... Black Tusk (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenland

what do I hav to do to add Greenland on this article, and make it stick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.19.200 (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Show some actual sources rather than random speculation. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Greenland - The lagest island in the world, many canadians and online groups avocate the annexsation of Greenland by Canada. While Greenland is seeking more indepedence from Denmark, Canada mite lay cliam to Greenland in other to prevent the European Union, which is pressuring Greenland to return to the union snice the island's autonomous goverment left in 1985, to making a cliam on Canada's Northwest passage waterway. As with Quebec, Greenland being a nation/disirct soceity, would be given greator autonomy and its natives granted tribe sovereity. Like Alaska however, no formal party or movement exist, or any political prty has annexsation as a goal, as of yet.

Please read your user talk page. Continued personal attacks and edit warring will get you banned.--Jsorens (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

then why is this in the canadian secessionist page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current or former British territories

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

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

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

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

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

Never heard talk of Nunatsiavut separating from Labrador/NL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and who said anything bout fighting a war? we could just buy it from the Danish like the USA tried to do.--66.240.108.182 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

No never heard of it. The dialogue on here is the first time I've heard of it actually. Ah-ha. It was the National Post... [1] and Toronto Star [2] -- CaribDigita (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Caribbean entries

For the record the following book is the source for the information below.

• Carmichael, Dr. Trevor A. 2001. Passport to the Heart: Reflections on Canada Caribbean Relations. Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston 6, Jamaica. ISBN 976-637-028-1 The book's Forward passage, synopsis

The various islands are covered in that book as follows.

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

CaribDigita 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Acadia

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

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

Northern Ontario and Northwestern Ontario

twice the idea of the part of north Ontario is mentioned to want to join Manitoba, I don't think we need to mention this twice (especially since I cant get Greenland mentioned once, lol, j/k), and it should be mentioned once in other area or the other.--130.218.71.195 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the mentions are two distinct things. One proposal would create a separate province of Northern Ontario, and the other would see one region of Ontario transferred to another province that already exists. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Manitoba?Skookum1 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting item re Yukon "annexation" in 1937

Have no idea what befell this proposal, which the lede of the T. D. Patullo article in the NYT about this starts off with as if a done deal. I found this by accident looking for something else in the NYT's archives; a further web search shows it has something to do with the Manitoba (?) Schools Act, somehow (political bartering perhaps), but everything's in JSTOR or other member/pay-only sites. This would be something like the fourth (of six or seven) attempts/threats by BC to annex the Yukon...beginning with Governor Douglas' original one (he also wanted what's not Alberta to be part of BC). The 60th Parallel was a compromise position; the old Stikine Territory went to the 62nd; the kibosh about that border still entails legal paperwork/argument consequences for land claims in the southern Yukon. Yukoners have always, mostly, resisted BC's attempts to unify transmontane Canada, maybe that's what stopped things in 1937; both WAC Bennett and Dave Barrett had similar intentions and related actions, though WAC was most vocal about it (in re threatening go quit Canada over t he Columbia River negotiations and to take Yukon in doing so....); I'll link this to the Talk:Thomas Dufferin Pattullo talkpage, I guess....also on Talk:Aspirant sovereign states. The latter because from Douglas on, there have always been those proposing a self-governing - and larger - BC....all this far from Pattullo but it will be interesting to see what turns up about this, what he'd proposed, what deal was inked, why it went down....Skookum1 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: I expect the off and on sentiments for the East Kootenay and/or Peace River to join Alberta is already in the article; it should be fairly citable via local press archives, if on-line that is. And I know it's original research to make a what-if map, showing Bennett's and Douglas' any others' plans, and including the BC position on the Panhandle (see new map on Alaska boundary dispute; similarly the Albertan counter-position/aggrandizement could be shown as an overlap, with shaded areas around a solid-colour BC which add up show its potential maximum extent (if it had ever gotten its way ;-)). Maps would also be helpful to show re-arranged provinces....proper maps of Nisga'a settlement lands are needed...but then so would be local maps of municipal boundary-shapes, rather than just hte location maps.... what partly gave me this idea is the animated GIF maps of territorial changes in the US and Canada that are kicking around...Somewhere out there, also, in US histories and maybe on some state history pages, old northward boundaries claimed by Montana and Idaho, with the area north of Washington to be a state that was mumbled about as the State of Franklin (though that link refers to somewhere else, and there were one or two other names for such a state; this was long after the 54-40 settlement in 1846, more like during hte mining and railway boom; and a big reason the southern mainline of the CPR was built through there; to secure both economic and military control of the region, a core lement in the regional industrial complex known as the Inland Empire (then including the West Kootenay and Boundary), so it wouldn't become American and was in fact part of the industrial build-up associated with the S-A War; such fears continued in BC right into the start of the 1900s because of the Hawaiian coup and the Phillippines et al, but it was also because the ideas were still being loudly trumpeted by Washington newspapers (I'll see what I can find, there's lots on line)). So a section and/ormap showing the proposed boundaries (which Il'l see if I can find cites for somewhere) similarly something on the addition of the northwest to - Manitoba? - which was, um, pretty much Riel's concept of Nord-Ouest - though his was for a province/colony/? stretching from Nipigon/the Lakehead to the Rockies, not just to Brandon/Portage la Prairie (another speculation, but it would seem likely that Gov Douglas, if faced with a suddenly independent Nord-Ouest, or separate province or whatever - would have, perhaps, some influence within the fur trade community and work out a deal to get at least the Foothills, or the line of the Coteau; I'm not sure of his intended eastward boundary, or if it included the Mackenzie (might have been current AB-SK/NT-NU boundary longitude)....all interesting huh?Skookum1 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-ups: "State of Franklin in Pacific Northwest (proposed)" and "BC if annexed and made a state - I'm uncertain which of the two names it was.Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article does not meet the POV standards. Disputed/Unreferenced POV statements should be deleted. Po' buster (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific?--Jsorens (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A few POV examples of many in the article.

• English Quebec - Around the time of the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty, a self-named 'partition' movement flourished, advocating the separation of certain areas of Quebec, particularly the English-speaking areas such as Montreal's West Island,(just the west island?) in the event of Quebec separation, with such areas remaining part of Canada. This movement is no longer active (how do you know it's not still active ?)
• Alaska - Some Canadians (who, when ?) and Alaskans have discussed (how?)the possibility of the state of Alaska seceding from the United States and joining Canada under an autonomy plan allowing for a U.S. sphere of influence (POV). This is comparable to what some Quebec separatists have advocated for in the past (sovereignty-association, Quebec Autonomism) (According to whom?). The issue has been discussed on various fora, such as that for the Alaska Independence Party forum, which claims Alaska as the "lost province". However, no formal movement in favour of this proposal exists, nor does any political party currently advocate it. (Than it's completely POV or fabricated)
• Southeastern British Columbia - In the 1990s, there was discussion amongst some municipal councillors (Who?)in Elkford, west of the Rocky Mountains, about joining Alberta, whose conservative politics(Only Neo-Cons?) were more in line with their own than were the left-wing politics of much of the rest of BC. This discussion did not result in any formal movement (Than it's completely POV or fabricated)

The article is filled with them. Po' buster (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Uhm, please read the policy on neutral point of view before trying to enforce it. None of your complaints touch on Wikipedia representing a point of view in a way that's nonneutral. There's some non-specificity that should be resolved with verifiable references, yes, but the article isn't making non-neutral statements, merely ones whose verifiability isn't certain. WilyD 18:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, the article should have been tagged with the Verifiability tag instead. As much of the article is hearsay, and unreferenced. Po' buster (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

SE BC et al.

Re the SE BC section in the table, it's not just Elkford council that's been heard from, it's a common refrain about the whole East Kootenay/Columbia Valley and it goes back decades, before WAC Bennett even. Likewise the Peace River Country. How to find/cite references to that is hard, usually it's mentioned in op-ed columns or bios as opposed to regular news coverage.Skookum1 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There have also been repeated suggestions that the Atlin Country at least, maybe also the Cassiar Country, should be merged with Yukon Territory rather than run remotely from Victoria (that region has no municipal governments of any kind, nor much in the way of population either - total impact on the Yukon population would be less than 5%).Skookum1 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And in addition to the loose sentiment on Vancouver Island for breaking away from the Mainland, there's a parallel sentiment in the Interior about breaking away from the Lower Mainland. Voices to this effect were in fact heard during the build-up to the Olympics because of all the money/infrastructure improvements going into Greater Vancouver while the rest of the province went without....citations for that might be a bit easier to find, as more recent. Also, as far as proposed countries within BC, at least ten native nations have talked about being separate provinces/autonomous countries; these include (most loudly) the Haida Nation, and the whole gist of the Delgamuukw case was that the Gitxsan-Wet'su-we'ten Confederacy had never been extinguished and still existed....at one point the Nuxalk made a very clear statement about wanting to be separate/sovereign, and this is still the attitude among the St'at'imc/Lillooet and many of the more radical Secwepemc groups....all this got very sharply into focus during the Oka Crisis, which saw a plethora of blockades and protests in BC while the cameras were focussed on Montreal's bridges or afterwards; there was a blockade of teh road to Apex Alpine Resort from Penticton and the Penticton Band, or its warrior element, were very vocally calling for independence for the Okanagan people.Skookum1 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations

An anonymous editor is adding a lot of material without appropriate citations, and then even adding a "citation needed" tag to his/her own edits. This is not how Wikipedia works. The contributor provides references for the material he/she contributes, and it is best done so at the time the edits are made. The "citation needed" tag is not a way to ask other people to provide references for what you are adding. Please review WP:V and WP:RS. If citations to reliable sources are not provided soon, I'll remove the uncited material. It can be re-added when references are provided. Ground Zero | t 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop removing sections and article from this page w/o talking it over with people first. I created this page way back when, and you can not have anything on proposed provinces and territories of Canada without Alaska, Bermuda, Greenland, St. Pierre and Miquelon all together or cherry pick them. This is why Wikipedia is never getting a cent from me. Give me one week, ONE WEEK, and I will have everything cited.--121.219.154.221 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Get your citations, then click the edit button, it doesn't work the other way around. 117Avenue (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It should if your writing the article with the intention of doing so, you guys ever write a paper? idk about the rest of you, but I prefer to get everything out frist, take a break (or sleep as it was after 4am when I finished with this article btw)and then go back and cite everything. And what if I can prove something but it would take time for me to do so? what then?

Wikipedia wants my money and support, they gotta work with me on a few things. I have been very flexible, working around the changes of another users that change the whole format of the page I made, but have not been given the respect any editor deserves. For this, the whole page should be deleted imho, and I came very close to doing so.--121.219.154.221 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with proper editing techniques, as well as etiquette in interactions with other editors, before editing again. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just y'all wait, I be making a website to promote all these ideas using google, all will be cited when possible, and that should be more than enough for wikipedia. I'LL BE BACK!!! Canadian Ultra-Nationalism FTW!!!--121.219.154.221 (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia asks for references to reliable sources at the time contributors add material because there really isn't anyway of determining whether someone is adding valid material, or just making stuff up. Telling other editors to wait and you'll get around to it sometime, isn't an acceptable answer. If you have to look up the reference, then do so, and make your edits when you've found it. Wikipedia contributions should not be viewed as "writing a paper", but rather as "submitting a paper". When you've found your sources, then make the change and add the reference. If you set up a userid then you can create a "sandbox" where you can write and rework and add references later, and then when you're done, you move your work into the article.

Please keep in mind that other editors like me and Moxy are volunteers like you. We don't work for Wikipedia, and we don't profit from it (it's a not-for-profit so no-one does). Wikipedia is a community, and the community has developed a set of rules to maintain quality of the product for readers, and a good working environment for those who choose to contribute We welcome your contributions, but you have to follow the rules that the community has set so that we can all get along.

Good luck with creating your website. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and self-published material doesn't qualify.

I think you should also review the Wikipedia advice on article ownership here : WP:OWN. Please remember that "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit -- If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

Finally, don't delete the page. One of us will restore it, so it will just waste your time and ours. Regards, Ground Zero | t 16:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyedits

I have restored my copyedits that were deleted by the anonymous editor. Here is my rationale for each of them. If anyone disagrees with these edits, please discuss them here first, so we can develop a consensus. If these edits are reverted without getting a consensus here, I will undo the editors edits and protect the article if necessary.

1. "The Parti Acadien decided once again to support the creation of a separate province" - this sentence doesn't make any sense. It implies that the PA (1) supported a separate province, (2) dropped that idea, and then (3) decdied again to support provincehood. But this article doesn't say that.
2. "An area which was annexed by and is a part of Nova Scotia, but in the past it has been a separate colony." replaced by "An island that had been a separate colony, but was incorporated into Nova Scotia." This version is shorter (which is always better) and places events in the logical chronological roder: separate colony, then part of NS, rather than the other way around. And Cape Breton is certainly an island, so why generalize it as an "area"?
3. " Montreal Gazette, "Montreal as 11th Province", J. Martin, 18 February 1971, pp.7 " replaced by " Montreal Gazette, "Montreal as 11th Province", J. Martin, 18 February 1971, pp.7 " per WP:MOS
4. "advocated for the creation" replaced by "advocated the creation" - "for" is superfluous here.
5. Northern Ontario Separation Movement -- this group appeared in 2006, but there is no evidence that it is still around, so it is better to describe it in the past tense than in the pluperfect.
6. ", and could do so in the future" - deleted - Wikipedia does not speculate.
7. ", ranked in the most likely to join to the least." - no evidence is provided for this ranking - this seems to be more speculation.
8. ", and while they could do so if they wished, are not likely to join Canada in the future since gaining independence or have dissolved as political entities.' - deleted - this is also speculation and not encyclopedic in tone.
9. "Although Canada and the United States share the longest non-militarized border between two countries, there is a long history of secessionist movements and disputes about the border's demarcation." The "although" construction is used where the reader would expect one result from a fact, but there is instead the opposite result. "Although it is raining, she did not take an umbrella." The fact that Canada and the US have a non-militarized border does not mean that they should have no dispute. To say so is just opinion, and is not fact. Please review WP:NPOV.
10. "either as part of Quebec or as it's own territory" - I fixed this once before. I don't know why someone would restore a grammatical error. "It's" is a contraction of "it is". Trying putting "it is" in that sentence. It doesn't make sense, does it? "its" is the possessive form of "it".

Ground Zero | t 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All looks and sounds right to me - thank you for helping this old article.Moxy (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

on side-tangent here, the usual phrase is "world's longest undefended border" should be used here; attempting to qualify it as "un-militarized" inflects the meaning and in fact is in error; there are no barbed wire fences and still open stretches of trackless wilderness and open prairie (for now), but the historical and current reality is that the border is lined by bases throughout; not surprisingly since we mostly live close to the border and because the cities evolved around points of military security or geotactical reality; this is hidden on teh Canadian side; on the US side a series of formidable bases are near it, too many to list; a dozen or more in WA/ID/MT, then there's Messina (across from Cornwall), Ft Ticonderoga or if that's the hsitorical fort its successor in the Lake Champlain area, and so on; the US has never had its border undefended; those bases were BUILT to attack Canada, or be on the defense from it; same with Victoria or Halifax, both still naval fortreses, though their immediate competition Port Townsend's strategic position is on Whidbey Island, the Kitsap Peninsula and in Everett and on Boeing Field; and lots more (Steilacoom, Ft Lewis, and more)........so I'm suggesting the return of that phrase to its normal/mostcommon and also most correct form. The boundary is armed to the teeth; on the Canadian side it WAS (eg. Chilliwack CFB was there to protect a hidden back valley from Whatcom County, and also to guard the mouth of the Canyon and the passes east......Stanley Park and Jericho and Point Grey and more were all defensive positions; at first against the Americans most of all.Skookum1 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos

I think the Turks and Caicos should definitely be mentioned here. Was there a reason for removal other then it being unsourced? I think the original editor was right that it was too much detail for the main T&C article. CMD (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am looking for better refs so we can add some info on the topic- However the old text was just a copy and paste from here. Wait wait .... are you saying this is old info that was just moved from a wiki article? I though it was new. .......... info restored (but trimmed) and referenced. Moxy (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's from this edit, more or less. Nontheless, still unsourced there. Happily, you seem to have done a good job solving issue. CMD (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by Option Canada

Sounds more like they wanted the whole of southwestern Quebec, not just Montreal.

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

I would do the edits, but every time I edit something on this page it gets deleted or edited, so someone else should have a go cuz atm I am done. --124.180.155.198 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Animation Broken

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

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

BC

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

Cascadia?

Surprised this isn't here already, given the number of cites available; either for a breakaway from Canada or for Washington and Oregon joining Canada....Skookum1 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's not here because the Cascadia movement would be to form its own country, seceding from both Canada and the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.113.197 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hans Island is not a proposed territory

It does not belong on this page. I haven't followed the growth of this page of late, but would have opposed its addition, whenever that was. A disputed territory is not a proposed territory; it's not the same as suggesting that Greenland, say, had any movement to join Canada, in the way that there were those on St Pierre & Miquelon proposing joining Confederation, or the same as Sverdrup's claims. Re Hans Island never has such a fuss been made over a small bit of frozen rock, but this is a case of Canada claiming territory recognized by the ICJ as Danish, not Denmark claiming a part of Canada, not the other way around, or any movement by any Hans Islanders to join Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sverdrup's claims doesn't really belong here either; or Russia's claims down to 43-50 and 50 from 181x-1824/25 and 1799, respectively, or the Oregon Dispute-era US proposals that what is now BC be the State of Jefferson (or was it Franklin?); or New Spain/California for that matter, which is of the same kind. Those are not "proposed territories of Canada" and belong on a different page completely.Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Removals

I removed Hans Island and the Sverdrup claims sections, and also the bit about the Alaska boundary dispute; none of those have to do with proposed territories; irredentism is a completely different subject. Of the European ones, there is Iceland to consider, though I don't have cites handy, but between talk of using the loonie as currency there was also some chatter, if not citable chatter, about joining Canada; there may be articles in Icelandic media mumbling about it somewhere. I also took out a bit of blatant pitch - SOAP - for the Vancouver Island movement, and note that the long-standing talk of the East Kootenay and the Peace River, which both share a timezone with Alberta and relate closely to it, have wanted to leave BC; never coalesced but cites are out there somewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What is SOAP, and what is the validity of a separation movement? A Maritime Union would be the fifth-largest province in Canada by population, Cape Breton Island had been a separate colony, Nunatsiavut has a different culture, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean has a different culture, the government of Ontario does not pay sufficient attention to Northwestern Ontario, Toronto is the largest city in Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Did I remove those? No. SOAP is WP:SOAP, soapboxing to advance an agenda in this case; no other entry has that kind of sales pitch at its start. It doesn't belong there as it does come off like sales pitch; mentioning economics figures for the Island in the primary position and in a rationalization-context is part of that party's pitch; similar figures could be trotted out for the Interior or, noting what I already said about the Northeast and the East Kootenay, for smaller areas yet. I don't think "background" justifies it when it sounds like that. I haven't looked yet? Did you restore Hans Island too? WHY??Skookum1 (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Brad Wall invited Turks and Caicos to be part of Saskatchewan

I understand that Wall made the invitation in a tweet, and admitted the tweet was sarcastic. Based on those facts, I think it's misleading to say that Wall invited T&C to join Saskatchewan, without any reference to the fact that he was joking. In 1984, Reagan leaned into a microphone and announced that he'd outlawed Russia and bombing was set to begin in 5 minutes. I don't think an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously would refer to Reagan wanting to bomb the Soviet Union in 1984, without a reference to the circumstances (i.e. it was a joke). We have a whole article on that particular joke.

I do think it would be fair to say that Wall jokingly invited T&C to join Saskatchewan. I think that's legitimate. The question then becomes whether Wall's joke tweet is sufficiently significant to merit inclusion in the article, or merely trivia. I don't have a strong opinion on that second issue. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd frankly consider it trivia. Had he made a substantive offer through more conventional channels, it would absolutely merit mention — but if it was meant as a sarcastic joke, I don't see it as being worth wasting wikibytes on. For added bonus, Twitter is never a sufficiently reliable source for anything in its own right anyway — between the possibility of hacking, the inability to properly analyze a tweet for tone and the 140-character limit imposing serious restraints on the ability to add much actual context or nuance to a statement, things people say on Twitter almost never really merit Wikipedia's attention at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly the most trivial of trivia, and twisting it into an "invitation" is beyond comprehension—a total misrepresentation of the sources. I'd oppose its inclusion in the article entirely as WP:UNDUE. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't most of this article trivia though? The Global video didn't say if it was sincere, or a joke, and neither did what I had written. Unless he retracted it, an invitation, whether formal or not, is an invitation. Right? 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, this was clearly and obviously a suggestion made in humour. If we are going to present it as anything other than that, then I flatly oppose its inclusion as a clear misrepresentation. Resolute 13:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't imagine that Wall made the invitation in anything but jest. There would presumably be pretty significant financial, political and economic implications of T&C joining any province - not to mention a lot of practical considerations - and not sure it's even within provincial jurisdiction to make such an offer. Given the circumstances, even if he didn't say it was a joke (although he did, didn't he?), you need to assume he had tongue in cheek. Even Rob Ford would think twice before making such an "invitation". So, let's not take it at face value. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

But the Nova Scotia one is sincere, and there's never any joking in the Assembly. 117Avenue (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Nova Scotia invitation was the result of a vote, not a tweet, and nobody's suggesting removing it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Even a sincere invitation is dubious, for the reasons set out above. But I'm not going to wade into that issue. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are silly examples WP:N?

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

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

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

Northern Ontario

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

Cree and Ojibwa etc

What about proposed provinces and territories for first nations like Nunavut for Innuit?--Kaiyr (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

With wp:reliable sources they could be included. CMD (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can reliably source the hard details of one or more specific and concrete proposals, then they could certainly be added to the article (Kanienkehaka and Nunavik and Nunatsiavut, for example, are already included; Nunavik being the Cree/Inuit region in northern Quebec, just for the record, not a misspelling of Nunavut.) But if you want somebody to float their own personal theories about First Nations entities that could theoretically shoot for provincehood, then this article isn't the right place for that kind of original research speculation. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Nunavik is not a Cree region, although there is one Cree village in SW Nunavik. No, in northern Québec, Eeyou Istchee would be your best bet. Indeed, there is a case to be made to add: Eeyou Istchee, Nitaskinan, Nishnawbe Aski, Nitassinan/St'aschinuw and Nionwentsïo to this list. I do not know of any Anishinaabe (outside Nishnawbe Aski, which is quite large) or Mi'kmaq movement for provincehood or province-like-hood or pure secession. I am curious about movements within the Blackfeet Nation and other prairie nations... Danachos (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310231613/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4000/is_200207/ai_n9131167 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4000/is_200207/ai_n9131167

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong?

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

Agreed. TDL (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105113833/http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b887d3f8-2eb5-4886-b42a-b056ed05b509 to http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=b887d3f8-2eb5-4886-b42a-b056ed05b509

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean

I'm removing the inclusion of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean from the list, for three reasons:

• The page cited (broken link, though this is the page in question) makes no mention of such a movement, André Harvey's involvement, nor even of the region's distinct culture and flag. So right away the claim is dubious.
• Using Google, I can find no reference to any Saguenay secession movement nor proposals, from Harvey or anyone else. My searches were non-exhaustive, but if this were a real proposal, and André Harvey were credited for bringing attention to it, then surely it would be easy to find.
• André Harvey was a Progressive Conservative and then a Liberal— ie: a federalist. For that reason, I'm inclined to think that *if* he really did make such a suggestion, it was intended as a satirical criticism of the Quebec sovereignty movement (particularly by highlighting a "distinct culture") and not a serious proposal.

Ultimately, there does not seem to be any evidence, or even any suggestion, of an actual movement for a separate Saguenay province. Therefore, I'm removing it. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Where is Alaska

Some members of the Alaskan Independence Party want Alaska to leave the USA and join Canada as a province. There is information that says that somewhere (it should also be mentioned on AIP Wikipedia page). How can this page not have Alaska (or Greenland) on here and yet have the countries of Iceland and Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.123.224.212 (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading the article on the Alaskan Independence Party, their platform apparently seeks establishing Alaska as an independent country, there is nothing there about joining Canada. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As for Greenland, there was a discussion on this page on the topic, last updated in 2009 (see above). I know of nothing to indicate the situation has changed since then. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Trinidad?

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