From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Interesting, though I don't see why "Moderator" would be used. Why not Premier like *here*, with a (Lord) Governor? Nik 20:44, 28 December 2005 (PST)

My idea was this is where the framers of the Covenant perhaps got the idea for an office called "Moderator." We'll see how others react. Zahir 20:53, 28 December 2005 (PST)
My only qualm might be the mention of the "rising tide of neopaganism". While it's true that there ìs such a tide, as there is *here*, I would doubt the numbers have really impressed political parties enough to take them into account.
With all due respect, I doubt they pay that much attention to the Real Pagans (Arvorec immigrants mostly) who live in the province. The numbers just aren't significant enough in such a large place.
Me, I have no problem with Moderator as the local term for Lord Governor. After all, in Dunein, the rheithur's title is "High King".
Elemtilas 10:51, 29 December 2005 (PST)



Unlike *here*, the territories that formed New France were not conquered and given to the english in 1763. Rather, New France broke down after 1789 into various territories that either stayed independent (Louisianna, New Francy) or asked and were granted admission to the NAL (the various provinces between LA and NF). While the formation date of the provinces could vary, 1781 (as given under the government entry) would be too early by far.

The population ratio might need some adjustment (or explanation): if the province was not formed from New France's land but rather as a breakeaway land from the Hudson Bay territory (to justify the earlier date), there would be next to no french speaking presence (save for the odd villages near the border with NF). If on the other hand we switch the date to later and have it being one of the New France breakaway territory, such a small ratio of french speaker become odd has there would have been no massive immigration of english speaking Loyalists.

--Marc Pasquin 16:18, 31 December 2005 (PST)

I'm certainly open to suggestions. To account for the presence of French-speakers, what occurs to me is that the territories above the Great Lakes were settled by the Anglo-Scots and the French, with generally the former ending up west with the latter ending up east. Sooner or later some kind of border was settled upon--one that put a certain French minority within the new province of Ontario. Assuming (as I was) that the settlement began in the 1600s and the boundaries were drawn sometime in the 1700s, that gives something like four or five generations for the (fairly sparse) populations to mix. The border region would have a fair number of those with French blood, which would be a source of pride with many of them. But I agree that even under this scenario there'd be no call for Ontario to be bilingual and have altered the article accordingly. Now--the question comes up of precisely how and when was Ontario created? It is listed as one of the original founding provinces of the NAL so it needs to be a more-or-less going concern well prior to 1803, yes? I'm open to suggestions. Zahir 16:35, 31 December 2005 (PST)
How's this: The northern part of what is ontario *here* was given provincial status (outside of the hudson bay company land) sometime in the 1770s. Sometime after the creation of the NAL, the region of New France (*here* south-eastern ontario) known as the Pays-d'en-haut (wich until then had seen sporadic fighting between Neofrancian and Lousianan forces) requested and was granted entry into the league. Due to the small population number, the region was attached to the province of ontario. Probably as part of the treaty, they would have been garanteed some form of protection of their tradition and culture in a way similar to what you have *here*: not making the province bilingual but giving them separate school system, allowing the francophones to receive government services in francian "where needs warrants" and maybe even having a "Minister of Francophone Affairs". if this is the case, ottawa could be known as "outaouais", the french name for the region which come from the same native word.--Marc Pasquin 17:05, 31 December 2005 (PST)
I like it! Zahir 17:24, 31 December 2005 (PST)
If so, perhaps the province of Ontario is divided into two halves, an Anglophone half and a Francophone half Nik 17:53, 31 December 2005 (PST)
I would think French would have a co-official status in at least the Francophone half. Nik 17:55, 31 December 2005 (PST)


I'd suggest that the western, Native-dominated, portion should be called Rupert's Land, from the historic name of the Hudson Bay Company lands, which included what is now Western and northern Ontario. In my proposal on the Unincorporated Territory, I suggest that Rupert's Land was, for a while, a territory covering what later became western and northern Ontario. As for the Anglophone part, remember that Cornwall is part of Kemr *there*, and so New Cornwall would be unlikely. Nik 20:02, 1 January 2006 (PST)


I think the population would be considerably smaller. Without the American Revolution, growth would've been slower in the north for two reasons - A) no Loyalists, and B) a number of British immigrants who *here* settled in Canada would probably have settled further south *there*, since unlike *here*, there was no distinction between Canada, still part of the British Empire, and the United States, a foreign nation Nik 20:41, 1 January 2006 (PST)

I think you can make the opposite claim, that the numbers would be higher because a lot of the places where British immigrants would have gone are not really available--like Cherokee Nation. And without the Civil War there'd be more Americans, without the Old West so much to absorb that propulation growth. Zahir 21:35, 1 January 2006 (PST)
I'm not so sure that Cherokee Nation would be unavailable, though beign largely native, it might not be as attractive. You do have a good point, though, about the West being largely cut off. I suppose the big question is, how much immigration was there to the NAL as a whole? That fueled a lot of the US's growth, particularly in the 19th century. Either way, it's probably a definite conclusion that any growth seen by Ontario would be delayed, even if it did eventually surpass *here*'s population Nik 21:45, 1 January 2006 (PST)

Administrative divisions

I would recommend that county simply be translated as "comté" (as it is *here* in Québec). Préfecture was a republican invention and had a different meaning. Another option could be to have it divided into parish ("paroisse") which would make sense in a dominently catholic entity.

Why do the head of the various district have different name (and why premier for the francophone) ? --Marc Pasquin 15:55, 2 January 2006 (PST)

"Parish" methinks. Thankee! I just liked the idea of each of the three districts having its own flavor. "Premier" sounded right. But if you have an alternate, I've very open to suggestions. Zahir 17:43, 2 January 2006 (PST)
The only real problem with premier is that it translate as "first" and sound ackward (french *here* does not make the differrence between "premier" and "prime-minister" which are both called "premier-ministre"). You could simply call him the same as in english (which of course they would translate when speaking french). Another option would be Intendant (the civil servant in charge of a province under the ancient regime) which is the title used by the ruler of New Francy (although like "governor", it could have different signification in different countries). Finaly, 2 other terms from royalist france are "ordonnateur" ("who put things in orders") and the bailli (baillif). --Marc Pasquin 11:28, 13 January 2006 (PST)
Good point. Since the three districts are in effect sub-provinces, how about the chief executive of each being called the Lieutenant Moderator? Zahir 19:04, 13 January 2006 (PST)

This proposal is due to expire. Anybody want to offer input? Zahir 18:19, 3 March 2006 (PST)

Offensive Addition

About this part under Culture (emphasis mine) :

About ten per cent of the population of Ontario is Franco-Ontarian (who often take credit for the generally flourishing cultural activities in the most major cities, even the Anglo ones).

Maybe you didn't meant it that way (and just a poor choice of words) but I must say that it come out as a tad offensive and smacking of francophobia. I notice you added the "comment" after the rest of the text in the Culture section, any reason ?

--Marc Pasquin 11:22, 11 March 2006 (PST)

  C E N S O R E D  

Okay, that's enough! Muzzle it, guys!!!
I'm very unpleasantly surprised about the direction this discussion has taken. We all know where this kind of things can lead us, and this time I'm not going to let that happen. I'm too fond of both of you for that. And honestly, I don't give a damn who is right and who is wrong here.
It is not really my style to issue ukazes or vetoes, but this time I will do it:

  1. This discussion is over. I you feel the need to continue it anyway, please do so privately by email.
  2. I'm protecting this page for a while. And let nobody with admin authorities even think of editing it anyway.
  3. The offensive passage will be removed from the article.

This decision is final. Any complaints can be directed to my talk page. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 00:31, 12 March 2006 (PST)


The proposal while interesting is unneeded: the border of ON is way out somewhere between the Severn and the *Churchill Rivers. Elemtilas 09:14, 1 April 2006 (PST)

Proposal #1

Okay, this is just a starting point, but here is a proposed map of Ontario, for the moment sans any concept of Thunder Bay being some kind of enclave. In this case, I put the NW border roughly halfway between the Severn and Churchill rivers. The borders between the three Districts is based (roughly) on borders within Ontario *here*. I am very willing to change this. Let me know what you think. Zahir 11:48, 1 April 2006 (PST)

Looks good. Perhaps the line could be drawn along the Gods River (its mouth is at York Factory, which itself would be in UT). Following the Gods R. back to Gods Lake, then jump over to Stevenson L. and then down the McLaughlin R to L. Winipeg. Not too far from where you put it, actually. I have no problem with the internals. Elemtilas 13:04, 1 April 2006 (PST)

Regarding the divisions, based on its historical position, I would recomend that the position of the pays d'en haut and new yorkshire be partly switched. The first would not logicaly go so much up north (which would have been part of rupert land). To give you an idea, look at the map here:

--Marc Pasquin 17:29, 2 April 2006 (PDT)

Leaving aside for a moment the internal districts, this is a version with the western border redrawn in greater detail, as per Elemtilas' suggestions. Comments? Zahir 19:09, 2 April 2006 (PDT)

Yes, that's right. Elemtilas 12:01, 3 April 2006 (PDT)

Okay, here is a version that includes a division of the three Districts. As you can see, I'm assuming that essentially New Yorkshire and Pay-D'en-Haut simply agreed to split the inhabited lands up to a certain point down the middle, with Rupert's Land developed (or under-developed, if that's how you see it) separately. Comments? Suggestions? Zahir 21:13, 3 April 2006 (PDT)
Um, didn't we have to change the shape of Ontario to make the Unincorporated Territory work better (the map appears to have dissapeared from the website)? Or are we sticking with the originally-sized Ontario? --Sikulu 06:24, 4 April 2006 (PDT)
Here's the new map of the NAL that shows my point. --Sikulu 06:25, 4 April 2006 (PDT)
I'm just trying to get a "lock" on some of these details. My impression from the start was that Ontario in the NAL was quite a bit larger than Ontario in the nation of Canada. I wrote my proposal with that in mind, and I waited much more than the required 30 days before removing the Proposal tag, during which there was a fairly lively discussion (see above). The question came up regarding Thunder Bay because of a news article I submitted to the conculture group. The consensus seems to be towards a larger Ontario (which is btw, why the article refers to the province as "The Quiet Giant"). I've now created a gallery for better comparison and discussion below.Zahir 06:52, 4 April 2006 (PDT)


History of the Region?

Assuming new yorkshire was split off from the pays-d'en-haut, it should probably spread a around the great lake supper the HBC land did not extend all the way to them. --Marc Pasquin 17:24, 4 April 2006 (PDT)

The history established so far is that the English and French were both colonizing/competing for the lands north of the Great Lakes. Eventually, the two colonies--New Yorkshire and Pay-d'en-Haut--pretty much came to an agreement on their own (I'm assuming along a fairly straightforward line of demarcation). When the French Revolution hit, Pays-d'en-Haut in effect petitioned to join with Ontario while New Francy remained Royalist and Louisianne went Republican (other French territories like Les Plaines did other things). The dividing line between the two initial districts was to clearly delineate between Anglo and French influence, jurisdiction, traditions, etc. Rupert's Land was intended to be developed jointed or individually. Neither district was claiming it as its own, which has resulted in a huge region dominated by the orginal inhabitants but with large minorities of French, Anglos and others. This would include the western shores of Lake Superior. That is the logic from which I was proceeding.
Now, if folks see problems with the scenario for one reason or another, please feel free to offer suggestions. The idea of New Yorkshire hugging Lake Superior is one I considered, but my presumption was that the folks of Pays-d'en-Haut would object strongly to that, and that a compromise wherein those lands would be considered neither New Yorkshire nor Pays-d'en-Haut might be the result. Does that make sense? And am I missing something? Zahir 18:33, 4 April 2006 (PDT)
I'm going more for #3, since Rupert's Land could quite easily be divided into several component areas/native nations. --Sikulu 05:39, 27 April 2006 (PDT)
I have to say that I have a few problem with this proposition. Firstly, colonial powers were not famous for making compromise, the political philosophy at the time for conflict resolution was to go to war and *then* discuss a treaty to settle what goes to whom. Even at the local level, colonist kept fighting skirmishes (or encouraging natives to do so) to prevent encroachement by the ennemy
Also, I don't see what reason the french would have for not wanting the new-yorkshirite to have control of the great lake but being perfectly content with the hudson Bay having them. From the french point of view, it end up in either case being english. Control of the Great lake was the resons for a fair few conflicts between France and England and later the US and the UK.
What would be more plausible to me is something based on the history *here*: The first british "Province of Quebec" was originaly to be ruled like any other one. A year or 2 before the begining of the US Revolution however, the british government decided to ensure the loyalty of the "canadiens" (as the local born frenchmen were then known) by reinstating french laws and custom as well as the free practice of their religion (catholicism). After the revolution, a large number of the United Empire Loyalist moved to the western part of Quebec. The fact that they had to follow french laws and practices however created frictions and eventualy the British government splited the province in 2.
Now *there*, the territory of both NY and PdH could have been fully french until the french revolution. Because of its low population density, it would have been joined with the Hudson bay land to form Ontario. In the following decades, englishmen from the Hudson bay district and other provinces settled into the PdH district. As *here* the legal and cultural different would have created growing tension until eventualy the district is split into its modern district. In addition, within that context, the loss of the great lakes would have made no difference whatsoever (its still within the province)
--Marc Pasquin 17:39, 27 April 2006 (PDT)
Marc, it seems to me that what you're proposing is that the French and Indian War (or some version thereof) did in fact take place. Personally, I find that quite believable and rather more probable than the current implied history of American colonization, because such a conflict/conflicts would give a reason for the British to arm/ally with the Native Tribes rather than run roughshod over them. As far as that goes, I'm in favor of your idea. In fact, I would say that such a situation would do much to create the spirit of unity which must have been a prerequisate to the formation of the NAL. Zahir 18:37, 27 April 2006 (PDT)
If you make NY and PdH a division of Ontario, as represented here and here, partitioning it apropriatly, then is might work a bit better. Is this the sort of thing you had in mind Marc? --Sikulu 03:34, 28 April 2006 (PDT)
Uh, methinks those examples would involve redrawing the map of New Francy, and in a big way. Zahir 07:35, 28 April 2006 (PDT)
I think he was refering only to the ontario bit (to be then split off in two) which is indeed was I had in mind. I'm glad you enjoyed my proposal Zahir although I'm not sure I understand why it would require a "French and Indian War". --Marc Pasquin 08:58, 28 April 2006 (PDT)
Yes, that's just what I was thinking. And, anyway, NF and the NAL have done some teritorial exchanges (more padding on the east-side of the St. Laurence river in exchange for Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island). I'd also expect that NF might have exchanged a chunk of what *here* is Labrador for more padding on the NF's northwest (and access to the Hudson Bay) with the HBC too. --Sikulu 03:06, 29 April 2006 (PDT)

Well, it seems to me that you were calling for Ontario to begin as an English-dominated PdH. But then, I haven't had any caffeine this morning so my brain cells might be sluggish right now. But here are facts that have been accepted (as I understand it) as QSS:

  • The name of the province is Ontario, not Pays-d'en-Haut or any other French name.
  • The majority of its population is Anglophone, as are the names of several major cities.
  • Essentially, the province arose from at least two different entities: The Hudson Bay Company and the French colonists.
  • There are three districts that comprise the province: One french, One anglo, One very mixed.

Now as noted earlier, some kind of conflict in which the English, Scots and Kemrese viewed the native tribes as valued allies would account for much of the difference between *here* and *there* as well as explaining why a chunk of what would seem to be New Francy ended up as part of Ontario. Frankly, one of my few "pet peeves" with IB is that sometimes results have been established without any realistic hint as to how that could have come about. Why the native Americans were not conquered in the face of a rising wave of technologically more advanced invading colonists to me requires something more specific than "things happened differently." But if the contest for North America was more tenuous between more European would-be empires, then the Tribes become valuable allies (think the Byzantine and Roman Empires, or the Cold War in SE Asia) to be built up and treated with enough respect to keep the alliance going. To me, such a situation would pretty much require a genuine conflict of some kind, presumably in the mid-18th century. And such an alliance would be the nascent beginning of the NAL. Hmmmm...may have to draw up a more precise proposal...hmmmm... Zahir 09:22, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

As for the "pet peeves" There's a lot of that, and so there's been a lot of retconning within the group. We all have to do it, aside those that were here in the "Dream Time". (Look at me and the Mormons of Deseret...that was some serious adjustments and a minor QSS skirmish. :)
I think that what you're suggesting is very good (the Indian War), and you may want to bring your proposal to bear within our discussion of the 1755 War. We tried to work out that idea before, and Mark and I really didn't come to a consensus and now we've both been so busy we haven't contributed. BoArthur 10:15, 28 April 2006 (PDT)
I think there is a bit of misunderstanding here: What *here* is the southern part of the province of Ontario was originaly french, its was the northern part that was english. It was splitted off after the US revolution into "Upper-Canada". Its only latter on (1867) gained its current name. The same I had assumed would have applied.
Next, the actual french population was spreaded very thin on the ground among various forts and fur trading counters. As such, it was more the "frontier" area of New France then a well designated area under central government (in other word, not a chunk taken out of New Francy).
It also mean that the actual french population would have been relatively small compared to its northern neighbour. So then, I was not implying a french majority in the the province, as *here*, the francophones would have found themselves quickly outnumbered by the anglophones leading to the split I described earlier. --Marc Pasquin 11:27, 28 April 2006 (PDT)
I'm going to look more closely at the 1755 War. I should also explain that I've kinda fallen in love with the idea of Pays-d'en-Haut being quite Frankish in feel, with an infusion of Anglish-ness, while New Yorkshire would be exactly the opposite. Zahir 12:32, 28 April 2006 (PDT)
I'm fine for that, and would support you in that, as, after all, they were populated (loosely) by the canadiens, so why not. What do you think of my Hybrid map? BoArthur 13:14, 28 April 2006 (PDT)
Quite like the map. I'll have more feedback later. Meanwhile, I'd encourage anyone else's ideas as well. Zahir 14:19, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

ookey, here's mine:

proposal for a 18th century map of (what will become) ontario
proposal for a 21st century map of ontario

The first map shows the territory has in would have appear in colonial time Just after part of it had been granted some autonomy. After the french revolution and the colapse of New France, part of the highlands is joined to New Yorkshire and the rest split into a few provinces. English settlers would have then spreaded to the south and west and around the great lake. After the HBC lost its landowning status, the land would have been split in various part some (where some french woodsmen had settled) being linked to the Pays-d'en-Haut district and the northernmost part becoming a new district.

Regaring the outside borders of the modern map, the eastern one is based on the border on the map of New Francy I made a while back (it mainly follow the rivers). The western one is similarly based on a line that follow the Servern River down to Sandy Lake and then follow various natural obstacles south to the southern border it has *here*. The shape of the french speaking district is based on taking the largest francophone agglomeration in ontario *here* and then darwing a line that connect them. The borders of both district are arranged to the south in such A WAY as having Toronto being just at the meeting point of both the english and francian speaking districts (see inset) which could have been a compromise location for the capital. --Marc Pasquin 17:57, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

I quite like this and would be willing to go along with same. My only real question is--what in your opinion is the capital of Rupert's Land? Anybody have a thought? Zahir 18:11, 17 May 2006 (PDT)
A quick look at the demographic gives the 3 largest city *here* (disregaring the provincial and federal capital) for each equivalent district as :
Thunder Bay (New Yorkshire), a port on lake superior
Hamilton (pays-d'en-haut), a port on lake ontario
Moosonee (rupert's land), near the base of Hudson bay
Obviously the names, history and population could be tweaked but these are probably good place where to have founded a city. --Marc Pasquin 18:32, 17 May 2006 (PDT)
What about York Factory as the capitol of Rupert's Land? It was the North American HQ of the Hudson's Bay Company. --Sikulu 06:34, 18 May 2006 (PDT)
Personal tools