Talk:Panis (slaves)

{{cn}}

I removed a citation needed which I believe was placed by a contributor who did not properly check the paragraph's existing reference. Geo Swan (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Date confusion

The article currently says:

From the mid-17th century to the abolition of slavery in 1833, there were approximately 2,683 slaves of First Nations descent; making up nearly two-thirds of all slaves in New France during the period of French colonial rule.

The previous paragraph already addressed slavery during the French colonial rule, and said there had been an estimated 2000 slaves total.

Logically, the second paragraph should cover the period from the English conquest of Quebec, in 1760, to the total abolishment of slavery, in 1833.

Many people get confused and forget that the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th century date system is origin zero. So, the mid 17th century would be approximately 1650.

The paragraph cites offline references. Since it seems questionable I'll try to figure out who added that paragraph, and ask them to check those references... Geo Swan (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Context of that sentence actually largely comes from the first source (Canadian Encyclopedia), not so much the offline source, where it states; The records indicate that in the Quebec administrative region — including areas that were at times under its jurisdiction, such as Acadia, the Great Lakes region, Lake Champlain, and the Sainte-Famille mission in present-day Illinois — 4,185 slaves were owned between the mid-17th century and the year 1834, when slavery was abolished. Of that number, 2,683 were Indigenous people, 1,443 were Black people and 59 were of unknown origin. When I added the sentence, I originally used BNA as opposed to New France given the end date, though another editor has since changed it to New France (which I get, seeing as how it was reflective of the region described in the source). In saying that, I get how using either BNA/New France could be problematic given the wide range of years were dealing with here (and multiple administrative units that would be involved here).

I didn't add the offline source, though I did eventually merge the reference with the sentence in question here, viewing it as a redundancy. In saying that, I didn't add that source, nor do I have access to it, so I'd be sorta just speculating on that one here. Leventio (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)