Bas-Canada or Canada-Est and Upper Canada or Canada-West ... what location name to use ??

Question

When France lost Nouvelle-France, the territory was name "Province of Quebec".

In 1791, the territory was divided in 2 different provinces...

1- Bas-Canada / Lower Canada

2- Haut-Canada / Upper Canada

From 1841 to 1867, the former provinces of Lower and Upper Canada, united in the province of Canada, are sometimes called 'Canada East' and 'Canada West'. The Act of Union of 1840 makes no mention of these appellations, so that they are not official.

Under the Union, these two names are still used in personal correspondence, in newspapers and in some official documents. However, in 1849, Parliament passed a law that enshrined the geographical names 'Lower Canada' and 'Upper Canada'.  - source: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/patrimoine/lexique/canada-est-canada-ouest.html

Now my question:

Should we use ONLY Lower and Upper Canada for categories ?

Answer 1

I don't have a stake in Quebec, but I Category streams need to be in a single language per Category stream, and it makes sense to me that the primary Category stream for Quebec should be in the French language stream, not the English language stream.  (There can be an English language stream as desired, which would be secondary and supplemental).

In addition, there were some prior discussions on G2G with respect to how to categorize a town which kept the same name throughout, but depending on the period of time, was in several different jurisdictions.  I can't remember the name of the town, now, but many or all would be in the same boat.  

So let's just create a town called Villefrance.  If Quebec followed the example of many other jurisdictions, the category for Villefrance would be Villefrance, Nouvelle France, Villefrance, Bas-Canada, Villefrance, Quebec, and other jurisdictional names.  But do you want that?  If so, well and good.

The alternative that was discussed a year or so ago was that the "landing category" to which profiles would be linked would simply be Category: Villefrance.  Then Villefrance could be nested in both Quebec, and Bas-Canada and the other appropriate jurisdictions depending on period, which in turn would be nested the next higher categories in the French language stream.  But if it was desired, Villefrance would also be nested under Lower Canada (and New France, not Nouvelle France)  in the English language category stream.  

The advantage of this is that the profiles of people who were born or married or died in Villefrance would be linked to the same category no matter what jurisdiction (and in what langauge) Villefrance happened to be part of at a particular time.  

We tried this in the Indonesia Project, and it seemed to be helpful.  Of course if the town name changed, as Batavia became Jakarta, then we still had a new category for the new name.

Comments

So, if we take the town of Montréal, we would only have one place category for Montreal and as the country changed, it would be linked to different categories

Category: Montreal ... linked to...

Category: Canada, Nouvelle-France

Category: Bas Canada

Category: Canada Est

Category: Quebec, Canada

If we do so, how will we differantiate Category: Montreal in Quebec and Category: Montreal, in France or Category: Montreal in Wisconsin and other cities in the world called Montreal ?

---

I like this idea, would save a lot of back-and-forth, particularly with all the changes that occur over time, and the more recent fusions of cities all over the province.  Montréal does not move around, just the political designations change.  :D

---

Guy, if you didn't want to go this route, than of course this objection would be a good reason to reject it.  If you did want to go this route, you   might differentiate Montreal, Quebec by making the category, [[Category:  Montreal_QB]] or something like that.  

I think what's most important is that you have project input on this.  You have a Quebecois Project and there are also other projects concerned with Canada that would want to have some input on this.  But you all know more about Canada and its provinces and how they should be categorized geographically than anyone else in the world!

---

I never said I did not want to go that way...

 

It would be a great solution but I am just asking how can we differantiate a city from a country with another city with the same name.

If Quebecois Project uses Category:Montreal... what category will use the other cities (In my exemple, France and USA)

If we use Montreal_Qc... then Montreal in 1750 would not fit in that category.

 

---

I was just trying to solve the problem of distinguishing the Montreal in Canada from the one in France or the USA.  Maybe call it [[Category: Montreal (CN)]]  Specifically trying to avoid putting the name of a province after Montreal, because that changes, but to identify it as not the French or US version of it!  

Nothing is easy!

---

Guy,  We did something like this for Denmark.  We did decide to include the country name in the landing category to resolve the issue of towns with the same name in different countries.  We also had to address the problem of multiple towns with the same name in Denmark.  What we did to solve that problem was to include a parenthetical where there might be confusion.  Since there are at least 5 towns named Lyngby in Denmark, we would name the landing category something like Lyngby (nær ved Skibsted), Danmark which means Lyngby near Skibsted, Danmark to indicate which one we meant.

If I remember my Canadian history correctly, the word Canada was nearly always part of the full official place name wasn't it?  Nouvelle France went all the way from Hudson Bay to New Orleans.  The Canada part of it was mostly north of the great lakes and the British colonies, I think.  In the beginning, wasn't Montreal called Ville Marie, Canada, Nouvelle France?  Even when it was Province of Quebec, wasn't the province a province of Canada.  And Canada is the same in both English and French. Would it work to make your landing category name in the form of name of town, Canada and then put the landing category in the proper jurisdiction for each of the time periods?

---

Personally, I don't care what is decided on so long as the decision is recorded clearly on the Quebecois Project pages to be used as a reference.

Thanks,

---

Mary, no, Province of Québec from 1763 to 1791 was NOT part of Canada, it comprised the whole territory of what the French called Canada and Pays-d'en-Haut.  the English tried to erase the name Canada from use, didn't work.  They finally admitted it in 1791 or so, called it Canada.

On Montréal and Ville-Marie, we went over that question elsewhere.  The island was always called Montréal by the French (or Mont réal or Mont royal if you want to get technical.  ;) )

Answer 2

Given there was no "official" renaming of Upper Canada to Canada West (Canada Ouest) and Lower Canada to Canada East (Canada Est) in the 1841 Act of Unification, I suppose we should keep to the Upper and Lower Canada designations that were established at an earlier time.

I know I used Canada West for the period between 1841 and 1867 instead of Ontario and Upper Canada for the time betore 1841.

Comments

I also use Upper Canada before 1841, Canada West, Province of Canada from 1841-1867, and Ontario, Canada after 1867. But for a francophone living in the area, I'd use Haut Canada and Canada Ouest.

---

Actually, the 1841 act was an act of unification, didn't work too well.  It was United Province of Canada.

Answer 3

My opinion is that we should continue to use Canada West and East.

I cannot read the article which Guy links to, as my high school French has abandoned me, but any sources which I can find all state that Upper & Lower Canada were renamed in 1841. Library and Archives Canada use Canada East and Canada West for both 1851 and 1861 census.

So I think that Upper & Lower Canada are only appropriate until the Act of Union in 1841. I think to abandon these designations now would just create more confusion.

Comments

I agree, Dave.

---

Canada-East/West was of very short-lived duration, see reference I give above, which is in English.

---

Here's another viewpoint from The Canadian Encyclopedia: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canada-west/

Answer 4

Bas-Canada was the official name for it, Canada-East was an administrative designation mostly, of very short-lived duration officially:

1841 to 1849
From 1841 to 1843, the terms Canada East and Canada West were used. The former names of the two colonies, Lower Canada and Upper Canada, had no constitutional status. Quebec act divided Canada into two parts, Canada east and Canada west.
1849 to 1867
From April 25, 1849, the Canadian Parliament enacted an interpretation act, which once again gave legal meaning to the terms Lower Canada and Upper Canada:
The words "Lower Canada," shall mean all that part of this Province [that is, the United Province of Canada] which formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada.
The words "Upper Canada," shall mean all that part of this Province which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada.[4]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_East

This one shows the earlier time and has a map of what it applied to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada

Comments

If I follow the information you provide, we should created categories for Canada West and Canada Est for only 8 years ?

... Hundred of place categories for that period of 8 years ??

And... then go back to Lower and Upper Canada ??

---

I disagree vehemently with the idea of reverting to Upper & Lower Canada in 1849.. The interpretation act merely defines what constituted Upper & Lower Canada and allowed its use. Nowhere does it say that it replaces Canada East and West.

The census say Canada East and West in both 1851 and 1861.

The Wikipedia article on Lower Canada that Diane links to says:

"The colony/province was abolished in 1841."

There is no reason to revert to using Lower or Upper Canada after 1849. All it would do is confuse things based on an obscure law that was honoured more in the breach than anything.

---

​Ah, but what did people use?  Here it was certainly NOT Canada-East.  ''Use THEIR conventions''.  We called it Bas-Canada.  In French.  That the census records wrote Canada-East is one item.  But both terms were used indiscriminately in fact.  So neither is an error.

''The old Canadas, each with its separate history, society and culture, virtually remained equal, distinct sections inside one political framework. They were now Canada West and Canada East geographically, but even the names Upper and Lower Canada survived in popular and some official use.''

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/province-of-canada-1841-67/

---

Depends. My ancestor, Anthony Anderson https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Anderson-12211 was a justice of the peace in 1828 in what the Drouin (Protestant) Church Records called the City of Quebec. That was his convention.

I have no problem with using a French language stream for Quebec as long as I can set up categories in English for my anglophone/bilingual ancestors. But hands off Canada West! WikiTreers in Ontario have been using Canada West for years now. I have letters and documents signed [town], C.W.  It was definitely in use here right up until Confederation. (I think Upper Canada came to be seen as a bit old-fashioned.)

 

---

By all means, we are mainly looking at our side of the equation here, Guy is working in creating appropriate categories for Quebecois project.

---

Hi again, Danielle. One of the reasons the red light went on when a few of us saw Upper Canada/Canada West in the question was a few members have been working hard on streamlining Ontario's categorization while keeping it historically accurate. It's tricky enough as it is without going backwards and changing everything again! Good luck with your categories. Let us know if we can help in any way.

---

lol, then in the period 1763-1791 you folks are having to write Province of Québec as that was its name.  Prior to English conquest the explored parts were known as Pays-d'en-Haut (up country)

---

Your point being? : ) Seriously, though, I suspect those who occupied those lands long before our ancestors arrived would have something to say about our place names whether in French or English. In Toronto, we now have four major streets that also bear their Anishinaabe names. Probably long past due.

---

actually, most of the place names were descriptive, and I see documents from New France days that name places by their native names, Mishimi.???.. (can't even remember how it all goes)  was one frequent destination named.  We do tend to name places more than they did I think, but then, they didn't create streets etc like we do.  Oh well.

---

I just realized what you were getting at! Whoever started the Ontario categories began with Upper Canada. So, as Guy suggests below, when Butlersburg (Niagara-on-the-Lake) was founded in 1781, for example, it would be categorized as Butlersburg, Province of Quebec. Well, another day...off to bed.

Answer 5

When Nouvelle-France became a british territory in1763, it was named "Province of Quebec". It covered all the territory that is now Quebec and Ontario.

I suggest we create categories "City, Province of Quebec" to hold the profiles and link them to:

Province of Quebec (link to British North America)

Lower and Upper Canada - 1791 to 1840

Canada East and West 1840 to 1867

we would have all profiles in the same sub-category  We're talking 100 years in history before the Confederation of Canada..

These categories could be linked to the category "British_North_America"

Comments

Some locations west of the Ottawa River, most notably Detroit (which included the Ontario side of the river), actually start as Nouvelle-France before becoming Province of Quebec. There are a number of profiles from this era on WikiTree.

---

Like you say, Detroit before 1763 was French.

We should make a "cut" between the French and British era. And the British territory starts with Province of Quebec.  This is why I would have all the landing categories in Province of Quebec and link them to the later names... Upper/Lower etc...

Answer 6

I would add, procedure wise, that I think it would ideal if the Quebecois Project consulted with other Canada Projects and came up with a categorization proposal of what makes the most sense to you all to address the unique situation in Quebec.  Then bring that to the Categorization Project and we can do any fine tuning that seems needed.  But I'm a strong believer that the people who will be most often using the categories should have a strong say in how they're set up.

Answer 7

Here is what we have done for what is now Ontario:

February 10, 1763 - December 26, 1791: Province of Quebec

December 26, 1791 - February 10, 1841: Upper Canada

February 10, 1841 - July 1, 1867: Canada West

July 1, 1867 - present: Ontario

It's true that the terms "Canada East" and "Canada West" do not appear in the Act of Union, but "Canada West" appears in the second act passed by the legislature of the Province of Canada, on August 27, 1841. At least through the legislation that I read, the acts were usually careful to use terms like "Heretofore referred to as Upper Canada" or "the late province of Lower Canada". I did not see any legislation using the terms "Upper Canada" or "Lower Canada" as the current names.

Comments

Then the only thing to do is add two categories...

Bas-Canada

Canada-Est

---

no, there may have been administrative paperwork that called it Canada-East, but I have never seen any use of that term made in anything else.  So stick with Bas-Canada, that is what was used here.  If you look at the first part of my answer above, there is a quote from 1849.

---

There does seem to have been a linguistic divide here. I cannot dispute Danielle's assertion that "Bas-Canada" was the commonly-used term, even from 1841-1867, among francophones. So it would make sense to use that in the French-language categories, even if it differs from what we're using in Ontario (or, for that matter, for anglophones in Québec). So I would have no problem if we ended up using:

Years	English	French	English	French
1763-1791	Province of Quebec	Province du Québec	Province of Quebec	Province du Québec
1791-1841	Upper Canada	Haut-Canada	Lower Canada	Bas-Canada
1841-1867	Canada West	Haut-Canada	Canada East	Bas-Canada
1867-	Ontario	Ontario	Québec	Québec

 

---

I'm fine with that, too, but I'm not sure what Jack means above by English as a "secondary and supplementary stream." Guy has added Bas-Canada to this profile https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Spink-159, so does it mean that on profiles of ancestors who were English-speaking, we use both languages? I'm okay with that, but I'm just unclear how it all works.

 

---

My suggestion would be to have the Lower Canada places (profile holders) named in french and Upper Canada in english.

Then we link those sub-categories to both upper categories.

This way all profiles french and english would be in the same cities. And searchers would not have to look in two places to find a profile.

---

I think that sounds great. Thanks, Guy.

---

Actually, no. We're supposed to use "their naming conventions, not ours", so an anglophone should have an English category name, even if they lived in Lower Canada/Canada East. (And, similarly, a francophone living in Haut-Canada/Canada Ouest -- or Colombie-Brittanique, for that matter -- should get a French category name.)

I agree that it's a nuisance having to chase down two (or more!) category trees (although at least we're not in Switzerland, which would need five). Personally, I'm waiting for the day when WikiTree is truly multilingual. In my opinion, that means a complete interface, help pages, categories, and everything for each language. So if you're looking at, say, my profile at en.wikitree.com/wiki/Slade-590, you should be able to switch to looking at fr.wikitree.com/wiki/Slade-590 and see all the same information, only in French.

---

Well, I thought it made great sense at the time, but I see your point. And, yes, how wonderful if the site were multilingual.

---

we're actually just at the start of getting a French portal, going to be a long haul getting everyting correctly translated.

Meanwhile, guess we should respect the law and make it all bilingual.  :D

---

Now that does make sense, but a big job indeed!

Meanwhile, oui, bilingue. (I wonder sometimes where all those French words I learned as a young person live in my brain and why I remember so few of them. Lack of practice, I guess. C'est dommage!))