![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article doesn't really say - so people at the time called actually it "British America" at least in a formal sense? I am curious, say if I was French or something not English and wanted to talk about "British America", what would I call it? Zantorzi ( talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Point taken and appreciate the fact that there is a historical context regarding the term and use of North. This is very important to note. However, I wonder why this page is not linked to US history. Again this kind of proves my point that somehow the majority of Americans write their history from a perspective that ignores their common British heritge which makes for culturally bias history something we strive to avoid here. Can. on the otherhand celebrates or at least a good portion of the pop. is very warm to the idea of its "Britishness". looks like the term itself changed in use and I've never seen it used in American textbooks. Its the "Colonies" and then magically the USA. This is such a inward looking sense of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.70.66.12 ( talk) 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added banner templates for Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America & Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean & Wikipedia:WikiProject South America. Updates to projects are offline since 8 April 2011 per [2]. When the update issue is fixed, I'll come back to remove the nowiki and add yes to all the Caribbean States, Central America, and South America banners. Argolin ( talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Considering Puritans and other dissenters (or non-conformists I believe is the historical term) founded many of the colonies, the infobox needs changing. Hot Stop (c) 15:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Is British America any more of an anachronistic term than, say, Roman Empire? Is it not just a defunct political entity? -- BDD ( talk) 22:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The infobox lists British America as having started in 1607. How can this be, as the United Kingdom didn't exist back then? Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 01:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The lede states that "British America" used to be called "English America". I've never heard of the term "English America". Any ref for such a thing? If not, I'll remove it from lede, leaving just "British America" per WP:COMMONNAME. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I know why the two pages have been kept separate, please don’t misunderstand me. But I cannot shake the firm belief that such a decision arose more as a convenience of organisation, rather than out of fidelity to actual history -- simply put, the hard distinction between 'British North America' and 'British America' doesn’t exist outside of Wikipedia. If someone can find a contemporary source describing said distinction I will eat my tricorn hat.
Concatenating adjectives with nouns in novel ways does not instantiate new histories; similarly, if the only difference between so-called BA and BNA is the subtraction of the 13 colonies, that does not warrant separate articles because there's no evidence of any intrinsic internal change to the remaining colonies. It does not follow that New Hampshire’s destiny predefines Nova Scotia’s any more than would the inverse.— Muckapedia ( talk) 9e juin 2018 23h08 (−4h)
Dilidor, Since the colonies were English and British and this article's purpose is to discuss this part of the British Empire, it only makes the article more informative to put this part in "British" context, and use and link to British Empire in the first sentence. `You have identified no substantive objection to doing so. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The article is at present heavily skewed towards an American conception of history. To wit:
1) The thesis of the existence of the article itself is that a) A thing called "British America" existed, b) a thing called "British North America" existed, and c) there is a clear separation between both those things -- a separation which existed cleanly in time and space. Unfortunately there is no documented proof of a) b) or c).
2) The provinces/colonies are listed according to a USA understanding, despite the fact that such an understanding did not exist when the dubious "British America" existed. For example, there is no justifiable reason to split Quebec in the listing.
There is a lot of fiction in this article which needs to be addressed. I suspect the only evidence-supported way to conceptualise the article would be to have it stand as "British America" meaning the British colonies of North America, which grew from first settlement, shrank some in 1785, and then grew again until Confederation. This meaning would include Newfoundland on/off until 1949, and Bermuda to this day.
If anyone has a better idea please share. — Muckapedia ( talk) 2e déc. 2019 10h45 (−4h)
Background to English/British colonization in the Americas British proto-Canada British proto-United States area British Carribean and Central American area British South America A good select secondary source Bibliography
Offered with the best of intentions for your consideration // Timothy:: talk 17:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Before I start making major edits, it appears that Harbour Grace, Newfoundland was the first permanent English settlement overseas, in 1583. Does anyone disagree or have anything else to say? Esszet ( talk) 02:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article doesn't really say - so people at the time called actually it "British America" at least in a formal sense? I am curious, say if I was French or something not English and wanted to talk about "British America", what would I call it? Zantorzi ( talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Point taken and appreciate the fact that there is a historical context regarding the term and use of North. This is very important to note. However, I wonder why this page is not linked to US history. Again this kind of proves my point that somehow the majority of Americans write their history from a perspective that ignores their common British heritge which makes for culturally bias history something we strive to avoid here. Can. on the otherhand celebrates or at least a good portion of the pop. is very warm to the idea of its "Britishness". looks like the term itself changed in use and I've never seen it used in American textbooks. Its the "Colonies" and then magically the USA. This is such a inward looking sense of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.70.66.12 ( talk) 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added banner templates for Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America & Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean & Wikipedia:WikiProject South America. Updates to projects are offline since 8 April 2011 per [2]. When the update issue is fixed, I'll come back to remove the nowiki and add yes to all the Caribbean States, Central America, and South America banners. Argolin ( talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Considering Puritans and other dissenters (or non-conformists I believe is the historical term) founded many of the colonies, the infobox needs changing. Hot Stop (c) 15:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Is British America any more of an anachronistic term than, say, Roman Empire? Is it not just a defunct political entity? -- BDD ( talk) 22:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The infobox lists British America as having started in 1607. How can this be, as the United Kingdom didn't exist back then? Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 01:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The lede states that "British America" used to be called "English America". I've never heard of the term "English America". Any ref for such a thing? If not, I'll remove it from lede, leaving just "British America" per WP:COMMONNAME. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I know why the two pages have been kept separate, please don’t misunderstand me. But I cannot shake the firm belief that such a decision arose more as a convenience of organisation, rather than out of fidelity to actual history -- simply put, the hard distinction between 'British North America' and 'British America' doesn’t exist outside of Wikipedia. If someone can find a contemporary source describing said distinction I will eat my tricorn hat.
Concatenating adjectives with nouns in novel ways does not instantiate new histories; similarly, if the only difference between so-called BA and BNA is the subtraction of the 13 colonies, that does not warrant separate articles because there's no evidence of any intrinsic internal change to the remaining colonies. It does not follow that New Hampshire’s destiny predefines Nova Scotia’s any more than would the inverse.— Muckapedia ( talk) 9e juin 2018 23h08 (−4h)
Dilidor, Since the colonies were English and British and this article's purpose is to discuss this part of the British Empire, it only makes the article more informative to put this part in "British" context, and use and link to British Empire in the first sentence. `You have identified no substantive objection to doing so. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The article is at present heavily skewed towards an American conception of history. To wit:
1) The thesis of the existence of the article itself is that a) A thing called "British America" existed, b) a thing called "British North America" existed, and c) there is a clear separation between both those things -- a separation which existed cleanly in time and space. Unfortunately there is no documented proof of a) b) or c).
2) The provinces/colonies are listed according to a USA understanding, despite the fact that such an understanding did not exist when the dubious "British America" existed. For example, there is no justifiable reason to split Quebec in the listing.
There is a lot of fiction in this article which needs to be addressed. I suspect the only evidence-supported way to conceptualise the article would be to have it stand as "British America" meaning the British colonies of North America, which grew from first settlement, shrank some in 1785, and then grew again until Confederation. This meaning would include Newfoundland on/off until 1949, and Bermuda to this day.
If anyone has a better idea please share. — Muckapedia ( talk) 2e déc. 2019 10h45 (−4h)
Background to English/British colonization in the Americas British proto-Canada British proto-United States area British Carribean and Central American area British South America A good select secondary source Bibliography
Offered with the best of intentions for your consideration // Timothy:: talk 17:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Before I start making major edits, it appears that Harbour Grace, Newfoundland was the first permanent English settlement overseas, in 1583. Does anyone disagree or have anything else to say? Esszet ( talk) 02:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)