Talk:Northwest Territories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canadian Territories WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article or list is a nominee for the Version 0.7 release of Wikipedia. See the nominations page for more details.
Additional information: ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Commision/self-government/1980/1985 2 Territory name 3 "The" 4 Population of Northwest Territories since 1871 5 the inuit words show up as ?'s

[edit] Commision/self-government/1980/1985

The Northwest Territories#Politics section needs a tune-up. It's not clear if 1980 or 1985 is when the commisioner became a symbollic function. There seems to be some redunancy here, as the role of the commisioner is repeated (but not repeated exactly). As well, I find questionable the use of the term "head of state". I can see the term applied to the Queen, maybe the Governor General (in her place), and even to a leutenant-governor(maybe), but I don't think it applies to a commissioner. The NWT is in no sense of the word a "state". Anyway, I don't know how this should be worded, or what's correct, so somebody needs to read the *entire* section over closely, reword it, and put in some citations for others to be able to check what's write. It seems the current section was written by different people with different personal knowledge. Also, perhaps another approach is to create a bulleted timeline (which maybe goes under history), so that one could more clearly follow the progression of limited self-government. --Rob 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is trying to say the Commissioner has lost powers gradually to the elected representatives. The last time the Commissioner sat with the Cabinet Ministers to make government decisions was 1985. The Commisioner is indeed the head of state for the Northwest Territories, it is outlined as such in the Northwest Territories Act, the same as Nunavut and Yukon. --Cloveious 03:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Territory name

Has there been any recent developments with changing the name of the Northwest Territories? myselfalso 00:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

fuck fuck fuck you

[edit] "The"

See Talk:List of communities in the Northwest Territories and Talk:Premier of the Northwest Territories for requested moves which affect this article - should the area be referred to as "the Northwest Territories" or simply "Northwest Territories"? I have no preference one way or the other, except to say that we should be consistent throughout Wikipedia, and follow common usage in the Real World. — sjorford (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As this is a plural noun, I've no inherent difficulty retaining in-text references when they're appropriate. I also agree with consistent renditions in Wp.

That being said, however (and despite usage to the contrary), inclusion of the definite article, the, is not prescribed by statute and is indirectly discouraged by Wp guidelines (for titles) and elsewhere. There's a difference between titles and dialectic. Recently proposed moves and collateral edits would merely make these articles consistent with titles for analogous (and overarching) Canadian subdivisional articles. According to the Oxford guide to Canadian English usage (ISBN 0-19-541619-8) (p. 342):

Residents prefer "Northwest Territories" to "'the' Northwest Territories". The preferred usage parallels usage for the names of provinces; that is, one doesn't say "the Alberta".

So, despite it being used frequently, including "the" might be improper form to begin with. Apropos (IMO), this article is at Northwest Territories (not 'the'...) and should be consistently referred to as such. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two different title naming conventions at work here. To use a parallel example: we have the article Netherlands for the country referred to as "the Netherlands", but pages with the country's name in the middle of the title do use "the", as in List of cities in the Netherlands by province, for example. To say that the title Premier of the Northwest Territories is against naming conventions just because the main article is at Northwest Territories without "the", is simply incorrect. Both articles titles are consistent with Wikipedia conventions. The only argument for changing the title would be if "Northwest Territories" is never written as "the Northwest Territories", and this appears not to be the case.

This is not totally analogous and parallel: "the" is an integral component of the translation of the Netherlands' long-form name; it is not for NWT. If anything, this highlights the inconsistency of titles containing "the Netherlands" (including the country article), not v.v.; this is another topic.

And another convention is at play – the rendering of other Canadian provincial/territorial articles in Wp of the same ilk, including Yukon. Can you or anyone demonstrate that the moves would be incorrect?

Lastly, given citation to the contrary, there's nothing precluding these moves, either. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Alberta case is irrelevant - nobody says "the Alberta", so of course there is no article called List of communities in the Alberta - that would be gibberish. But List of communities in the Northwest Territories is perfectly fine, because people do apparently say "the Northwest Territories". Again, I'm not Canadian, so I can't claim to be an expert on all this, but I'm just going by what I can see written in the article Northwest Territories amongst others. — sjorford (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly irrelevant – though I don't dispute usage to the contrary (obviously), I've cited a reputable Canadian publication and other instances that contradict you regarding usage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a reference from the Northern Review style guideline (PDF file) stating quite clearly on page 2 that "The Yukon and the Northwest Territories should be referred to with the definite article where appropriate: the Yukon or the Northwest Territories." The Northern Review is a peer-reviewed journal published in the North. Luigizanasi 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is helpful. Let's extract the full citation for context:

Spelling

5.2 As the Review is a Canadian publication, its editors prefer that authors follow Canadian spelling conventions as represented by the Oxford Canadian English Dictionary or any major Canadian dictionary. The editors will, however, accept the use most common spelling conventions used in other English-speaking countries. All spelling should be internally consistent.

5.2.1 Please Note: The Review prefers subarctic/Subarctic to sub-arctic/sub-Arctic.

The Yukon and the Northwest Territories should be referred to with the definite article where appropriate: the Yukon or the Northwest Territories.

It seems ironic that the Northern Review would invoke acceptance of the Oxford Canadian Oxford Dictionary as a preference for spelling – there are at least two other major Canadian dictionaries – while contradicting an ancillary style guide (Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage) by the same source. After all, it is as much editorial preference as the above is. Moreover, read passage 5.2 again and you'll note the syntax is off.

I guess the point is whether it's appropriate to include the definite articles in NWT titles. Is it in-text? Perhaps, perhaps not – see here for a melange. Based on everything presented and consistent with other Canadian articles, I still feel it is inappropriate in titles. And, throughout, I'd like to point out that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed moves would be incorrect in any way. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have demonstrated that it would be against Wikipedia naming conventions, which surely trump any other naming conventions you might refer to. I still see this as a simple issue of consistency - either the article titles include "the", as the text currently does; or both the article titles and article text are edited to remove "the" completely. I don't care which, but your current proposal seems to want to mix and match these styles. — sjorford (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have and I've cited instances to the contrary; however, we agree to disagree. And my proposal is quite clear about removing "the" from these NWT titles, for propriety and consistency with kindred Canadian articles. I would also prefer removal of "the" in-text too for all-round consistency in Wp (and know this can be done), but I concede that this might be disagreeable to others (particularly given usage) and is meant as a conciliation. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the NWT web site typically refers to "the NWT" and "the Northwest Territories."

[edit] Population of Northwest Territories since 1871

I find it interesting that the Northwest Territories was the 11th largest province/territory in 1901, when the country had 7 provinces (minus Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland) and 2 territories (minus Nunavut). When I get a chance, I'll take a closer look at the statistics information and see where we're coming from with that. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Statistics Canada provides population information for Alberta and Sasktachewan before 1905 (starts in 1901). It appears that for both of these areas, the population figures might reflect a smaller area than the present-day provinces. At least in the case of Alberta, the size was increased before statehood in 1905. For the Northwest Territories, the population drops significantly between 1891 and 1901, a decrease of 78,838. The population in Yukon Territory in 1901 was only 27,129, so it seems that some (most) of the population drop in NWT was due to parts of these not-yet-created provinces, AB and SK (StatsCan may be partitioning them off before the date of their provincehood).

However, a large population drop for NWT (68%) is also clearly seen between 1901 and 1911, so it appears that NWT has even less territory at this point, due to the now-enlarged and now-independent of NWT provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. StatsCan doesn't explain this very clearly in their tables, so this is my best guess. Ufwuct 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that the population drop from 1891 to 1901 was not due to the Yukon being created. The Yukon population was very small prior to the Klondike Gold Rush (starting in late 1896), and I believe that First Nations and Inuit, who formed the bulk of the poipulation of the NWT at the time, were not counted (This needs to be verified). Also, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba absorbed large parts of the NWT in 1905. Finally, it would be better to add the total number of provinces/territories to the rank colum (e.g. 8/9 in 1901, 10/11 in 1911, etc.)Luigizanasi 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the points that you two have raised, I would be inclined to call the entire set of statistics, particularly the ranking, into question. I have no doubt that Statistics Canada uses reliable sources and constitutes one itself, but unless we can clearly explain how the figures have been arrived at in the article, it is completely useless. Unless it can be significantly clarified, I would like to see it reduced to an external link or replaced with a table representing the population of the territory that is now the Northwest Territories. This would give an accurate picture of the population, as compared with the current information, which provides little more than a curiosity for a territory from which other jurisdictions have traditionally been carved. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 09:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late entering this conversation, but I think the 1901 population drop is consistent with the completion of the transcontinental railway. Thousands of workers were needed and lived in temporary camps in the territories to facilitate construction, the workers would have been counted as residents. News paper articles from political races at the time speak of attracting large numbers of voters from the camps. Seeing as the last major construction wrapped up around 1899 they would have gone elsewhere before the 1901 census. --Cloveious 23:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the inuit words show up as ?'s

in one section all the inuit words show up as ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M4390116 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)