Talk:New Brunswick

Dispute about Infobox content

An issue has come up: should the infobox to this article contain the field "government_type", filled in with "Parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Since this issue affects all ten provinces and the three territories, a Request for Comment has been started on the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board. If you interested in this issue, please come to the Notice Board and contribute to the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Population density

Just noticed that the sidebar is listing • Density 10.86/km2 (28.1/sq mi) - How you're getting MORE square miles out of LESS square KM is astounding. I tried editing it to no avail. The answer should be 4.19 sq mi. This may be an error with the formula that generates the value, as there's no way that I can tell at least, of editing that directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.236.70 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind - conversion of people per sq km will have a larger density since a square mile is bigger. 142.166.236.70 (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

"Time immemorial" is a well-recognised legal term; it is NPOV

The term "time immemorial" is a NPOV term. It is a Canadian legal term, borrowed from English common law, and used to signify claims by Indigenous peoples to indigenous title, hunting and fishing rights.

For examples of Supreme Court cases which use the term, see:

• Calder et al. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, [1973] S.C.R. 313

• R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075

• R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507

• R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723

• Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010

And, the Gladstone case cites a federal Order-in-Council from 1917 which uses the term.

Now, whether it applies in a particular case where indigenous historical occupation is asserted is a question of fact, but it is a NPOV term.

(None of which excuses an editor who says another editor is making bad faith edits when there is disagreement over the facts in issue in an article.)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The reason I claimed "bad faith", which I am only reading the article now, is because the user has a long history of deleting edits with regard to Indigenous topics, taking issue with the most minor of details and using that as an excuse to erase any evidence of Indigenous presence. Reading up on bad faith, this seems to me to be, or be approaching, sealioning behaviour. However, I could be mistaken, and it may not fall under such a label; I am still navigating my way around proper Wikipedia rulesets despite my years as an (armchair) editor. If this behaviour does not fall under "bad faith," I sincerely apologize for leveraging such a claim. Danachos (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You may also find it helpful to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution – Focus on Content. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this and do a cleanup. Just going to find some good sources. Moxy🍁 02:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

"Time immemorial" is incorrect, regardless of our feelings about the situation. It is believed that the Mi'kmaq emigrated from the West (see Mikmaq#History). This seems like it's extending into a case of of righting great wrongs now. MediaKyle (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Show us a source more recent than 1871, my guy. Or, rather let me: Nova Scotia Archives; there is L'nuey's article on the Peace and Friendship Treaties; as well as Elaine Jeffrey's masters thesis which touches on the subject. There is the book First Nations, Identity, and Reserve Life: The Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia by Simone Poliandri which, on page 30 states: "Tuck remarked that Mi'kmaw culture seems to have acquired a fairly stable and homogeneous character, albeit periodical and regional variations [sic], between 2,000 years [before present] and the time of European contact." Might I remind you that in British Law, time immemorial dates back to ~1189, well after this 2,000 year BP mark. The earliest identifiable Mi'kmaw petroglyphs at Kejimkujik National Park are estimated to be between 800 and 1,000 years old, again within the time frame of time immemorial. Although researchers are rightfully hesitant to say whether "Paleo-Indians" from thousands of years ago are the ancestors of the Mi'kmaq, there is an unbroken line from Debert's archaeological site dating 10,000 years BP to today. For example, Roger J. Lewis writes in his master's thesis (pg. 22): "Archaeological evidence in southwestern Nova Scotia suggests at least a 4,000 year plus history of traditional land and resource use." Finally, in all the modern literature, I see no one claiming that the Mi'kmaq came from the West.

But, for the term "time immemorial" which, again as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz kindly pointed out, is a proper and commonly employed term in Canadian law, there are even more sources that highlight the reality that Mi'kmaq having been living in their country since then. Cape Breton University writes: "The Mi’kmaw Nation has lived and occupied the area now known as the Atlantic Provinces and the southern Gaspè Peninsula since time immemorial." The Nova Scotia Archives, in their Mi'kmaq Holdings Resource Guide, more poetically states: "They are different words, but contain the same spirit of continuity and solidarity that has defined the eloquence and endurance of the Mi'kmaq Nation 'since Time Immemorial.'" Parks Canada uses the phrase on their Connect with Mi'kmaw culture page. Even the act legislating Mi'kmawi'simk as Nova Scotia's official original language employs it!

The use of "time immemorial" is so far out of question that the edit war of User:MediaKyle has no basis in modern academia. This is not a case of righting great wrongs, this is a case of modern, factual reporting. Danachos (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC) Danachos (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

"Time immemorial" is imprecise and unencyclopedic. Find an approximate date, or just say "historic". Time immemorial sounds silly. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is unencyclopedic or silly to use well-established Canadian legal terminology, used by the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal Cabinet in judgments and official documents. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually I would say that "historic" is incorrect in this context, because the arrival of indigenous peoples in New Brunswick was before any historical record. "Time immemorial" has an article explaining the accepted use of this term, so I think it should be used in the section Indigenous societies with a link to that article. I would also add quotation marks ("time immemorial") to stress that it is a legally defined term.Dirac66 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

When I've used quotation marks to indicate I'm using a legally defined term, I've had them deleted as scare quotes. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed at MOS:REALTIME which states:

Expressions like "former", "in the past", and "traditionally" lump together unspecified periods in the past. "Traditional" is particularly pernicious because it implies immemorial established usage.

If you don't know the date the Indigenous moved into the area, then say "in approximately 2000 BC", or something encylopedic like that. I'm sure the date has been documented someplace, and readers will benefit from this bit of knowledge. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

With respect to this comment from MediaKyle: "It is believed that the Mi'kmaq emigrated from the West (see Mikmaq#History)." — From my reading of the SCC cases, the Court uses the term to mean "before European contact". Oral history can record events that happened before European contact. The fact that this oral history was written down in 1871 does not establish that the Mi’kmaw came from the west after European contact. (Further than that I can't comment, because I know nothing about the details of the Mi'kmaw history.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

With respect to MOS:REALTIME: Wikipedia's style manual cannot prevent us from using legal terminology used by the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal Cabinet.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Time immemorial is a legal term of art, and can certainly be used in a NPOV way in legal contexts. I don’t think it is the best plain language option for making a general statement about the history of a place.--Trystan (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sort of inclined to agree with Trystan here. While I don’t have a alternate term to propose in its place, I do feel the need to point out that the fact "time immemorial" is legal WP:JARGON is itself a strong reason to at least explore alternative phrasing for accessibility sake. Legal terms like that are opaque on their own and we should not be relying on readers to "click the wikilink" to gain an understanding of what it entails (cue the often brought up stat somewhere in the MoS showcasing only a minute percentage of readers even clicks wlinks).

Like, while I normally support the idea that articles should mirror the language used in reliable sources as closely as possible, this feels like a case where some editorial discretion is warranted in the interest of reader accessibility and plain language. Leventio (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the point, but that sounds like we’d be trying to come up with our own non-standard term to capture what’s included in the term “time immemorial” but without using that term. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

References

"Nuvobʁɔnzwɪk" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nuvobʁɔnzwɪk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 18 § Nuvobʁɔnzwɪk until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Potential edit war, perhaps?

@MediaKyle, G. Timothy Walton, and Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: In order to deescalate a potential edit war, I suggest trying to have a consensus about it.

Here is what I propose for the article:

Federated parliamentary constitutional monarchy

• Federated because New Brunswick is apart of canada as a province.
• parliamentary because it's usage of a parliamentary system.
• constitutional monarchy due to the appearence of a liutenant governor to represent the british monarchy.

I can try to find some sources talking about this, especially with the "Federated" part. But I would still like for me to have my opinion be validated and mattered. in this discussion

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we simply have a disagreement about the meaning of that particular field in the infobox. It’s describing how the government of the Province works, along with related matters such as the Lt Gov, the premier, and so on. It’s describing the working of the government, not the role of the province within the federation. The type of government is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The fact that it’s part of a larger federation doesn’t really affect how the parliamentary system operates in the province. I don’t see that the federation aspect fits in there. No one’s denying that the provinces are part of a federation, just that that fact doesn’t directly relate to the type of government. I just don’t think it fits there. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In short, it’s not a matter of cites. We all know that Canada is a federation. But that’s not directly relevant, in my view, to the description of the structure of the provincial government in the infobox. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The reason on why I added the "Federated" part was because with other government parameters, they would also have something like "Unitary" or "Federal" at the beginning. I saw this and wanted to expand that to subnational entities as well. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, as you've seen, the federal status has not been included for any of the articles on Canadian provinces or territories. And, just doing a quick survey, it doesn't appear to be included in articles for sub-national units for other federations, such as Germany, Mexico, India or the United States. I checked four at random:

• Bavaria
• Veracruz
• Uttar Pradesh
• California

None of them have federal status in the section of their infoboxes on "Government". I've not checked the articles for all the Länder, or all Mexican states, or all Indian states, or all US states, but at first glance, it looks like along with Canada, the articles on sub-national units for five federations don't include the federal status. I think that's a good argument for the status quo, rather than your personal decision to treat sub-national units the same way as national units. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

That's because I didn't get to reach the other parts of the states with my "Federated" plan across wikipedia. I plan to do the states and territories if I can. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

"I haven't done it yet" is not a good argument in favour of having done it somewhere else. Obviously nobody else saw fit to do it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I just started doing it with the first examples being South Australia and then eventually all the states and territories. It looks so bland for me personally when you don't have enough detail on the government type or even worse, have the government part blank.

I still would like to keep continuing this conversation if possible as I would still like for it to have the word "Federated in it". GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The three editors that have replied here all disagree with you as to whether it improves the infobox. It seems pointless and cluttersome to me. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I'll accept that as the consensus since I think we can all reach an agreement on here. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, the Lt Gov does not represent the British monarch. The Lt Gov of a province represents the Canadian monarch. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

But to be fair on myself, the Canadian monarch is literally the same as the British monarch ever since the UK colonized the globe. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Not since 1926 and 1931, no. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain more detail on that? I just checked Monarchy of Canada and Monarchy of the United Kingdom and they featured the same Charlies III as king, so I don't quite get on why they're distinct? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see:

• Balfour Declaration of 1926
• Statute of Westminster 1931
• London Declaration

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I plan to do that, but right now I'm learning about the election process in Act (Hint: Hare-Clark system! :D)

But I really plan to read into the articles if I can. Just later.... GuesanLoyalist (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

See also: Commonwealth realm. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, the infobox is about the province itself. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Restore the infobox, to its long standing status. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add healthcare employment and opioid mortality data

Disclosing per WP:COI: I am affiliated with Inspurious, a Canadian data journalism site that publishes analyses of Statistics Canada and other government data.

New Brunswick's Wikipedia article covers its economy and demographics but has limited healthcare workforce data. I'd suggest adding two facts to the Health care or Economy section:

New Brunswick's health care and social assistance sector employed approximately 68,000 workers as of 2025, up from approximately 19,000 in 1976 — a 260% increase, well ahead of the province's overall employment growth of 77%. Health care's share of provincial employment rose from 8% to 17% over the same period — the largest increase of any Canadian province.

New Brunswick averaged approximately 54 opioid-related deaths per year from 2016 to 2024, corresponding to 6.7 deaths per 100,000 population — 6th among Canadian provinces by per-capita rate.

Both datasets sourced from Statistics Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada respectively. Buffleheader (talk)

No thank you, we don't want your data. Find somewhere else to boost SEO. -- MediaKyle (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure that healthcare is worth talking about in relation to employment in New Brunswick because it is a large employer, but why would this site need to be cited when it'd be more relevant to cite official government sources and newspapers? B3251_(talk) 09:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)