Talk:British America

message: 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 .  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)
thread_title: Affected Projects

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religion in infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: The term appears in legislation that continues in force, but would not be used if the legislation were re-written, for example the Colonial Debts Act 1732.  TFD (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anachronistic term" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Start date of 1607? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree—no such term used in common parlance. Hence, I have already made the corrections. —Dilidor (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  English America? 

message: 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)
replies: text: My contention is that the entire article expounds upon the topic of "British possessions in North America." Linking to a separate article on the same topic merely lures the reader away from this article, without offering any further insight. I'm trying to reduce the over-linking on the article so that the links are helpful rather than distracting. Here is what the manual of style says not to link to: "This generally includes major examples of: … locations (e.g., United States; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Japan; Brazil; Southeast Asia)…." The article itself expounds sufficiently on "the first British empire" without the need to send a reader elsewhere. —Dilidor (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection makes no sense.  The article section linked First British Empire gives the added context for the totality of the First British Empire, of which this article is a part.  The First British Empire is far more than a location it is a political, historical, system. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: British Empire

message: 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)
:As with most such matters, probably the best idea is for you to start by looking at sources:  (eg type in "British America" in your web browser, google books, google scholar, etc.) and then share what you find. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that your assertion here is incomprehensible. "The provinces/colonies are listed according to a USA understanding"... what other understanding is there? The "provinces/colonies" became the United States. "such an understanding did not exist"... an understanding of what?? The 13 colonies? Did they not exist?? What on earth are you saying?  —Dilidor (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree this article would benefit from some significant work. British colonization of the Americas is more developed (but has serious issues, I've worked on it a little). Perhaps this article is redundant and should be redirected to this article (this would be my current opinion, but there may be value here I'm not seeing). If it is of value, I think this article would be improved if it were structured as a series of broad topical sections (concise 3-4 paragraphs each) that naturally lead the reader into other detailed articles. An example of the structure could be (titles are not actual titles but intended to convey topics)
  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)
replies: text: These are interesting suggestions, but off-topic. The assertion is that there is no NPOV in this article, which strikes me as absurd. Perhaps the original poster could explain his concerns more clearly.  —Dilidor (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute

message: 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)
replies: text: Only to ask what citation are you going to use to support that. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The source given there is the town's official website, which should be reliable (they should know when they were founded).  After looking around, however, it isn't that clear-cut; the Canadian Encyclopedia, for example, gives the date as about 1618.  I'll just leave it for now. Esszet (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A town website is unlikely to have met our reliable source requirement because generally it won’t be evidence editorial rigour and fact-checking. Something like that would need to be cited to an academic work of scholarship. DeCausa (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope they fact-checked the article (in their own archives, if necessary).  Curiously, our reliable source policy doesn't say anything about government websites and other government publications; I'm assuming they are effectively considered reliable.  The size of the town is an issue, however; the fact that Mr. Pike appears to have been little more than a local historian is a serious issue.  As I said, I'm leaving it for now; I also started a discussion over at the town's article to try to have it cleared up. Esszet (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harbour Grace, Newfoundland