Talk:Labrador

Canada: Newfoundland & Labrador High‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador.

Border dispute

This bit about the border dispute is quite unclear. I would very much appreciate some clarification, and would like to know whether anyone lives in the area claimed by Quebec and what they think about it. A comparative map would be cool, too. - Montréalais 12:17, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have started to work on a map showing the current boundary, Canada's claim from the 1920s, and one of Quebec's current claims. However, it looks like I will not have much time to work on it in the next few weeks. I hope to get it done and incorporated into the article sometime in January.--Indefatigable 17:19, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have no sources, but I believe no one actually lives in the area. If there were anyone there, there would have been a need for a formal resolution long before today. Since there is no one and no resource exploitation at all, a formal recognition by either party would have no noticeable effect, therefore both parties agree to disagree. UnHoly 22:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There may be no people, but there are plenty of mineral claims staked, or have been at times in the past.

The area disputed by Quebec contains Wabush/Labrador City, which account for about half the population of Labrador. The huge iron ore mines of western Labrador and the Churchill Falls hydroelectric project would also be in this area. It is not a matter of the two parties "agreeing to diasgree". The original dispute was between two separate countries, Canada and Newfoundland, although both were Dominions within the British Empire. As a province of Canada, Quebec had no special representation at the when the dispute was settled and ratified by Canada and Newfoundland.Silverchemist 03:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's arguable that Quebec even "disputes" anything to begin with, but there is no serious claim at all on the part of Quebec to Wabush and Labrador City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.148.14 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Quebec claim isn't anywhere near Wabush and Labrador city, despite the fact that they were part of Quebec's claimed borders before the 20th century. 199.180.98.152 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original southern border of Labrador followed a watershed. The Privy Council of the United Kingdom dictated a straight east west border. The maps that I added show this. Quebec still resents it. When did the Privy Council make the ruling? Peter Horn User talk 21:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 22:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map gives the answer. March 11 1927 Boundary wth Newfoundland adjusted Peter Horn User talk 00:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Labrador Retriever

Is this region somehow related to the etymology of this dog breed?

See Labrador_Retriever#Name 99.245.230.105 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largest City

In the infobox at the top of the page, Labrador City is claimed as the largest city, with aproxiamtely 10,000 people. Later in the page, the 2001 census says Goose Bay is slightly larger, but that they are both under 8,000. Combined Lab City/Wabush make around 10,000, but this is not clear to those who do not know the geography. Should the infobox be changed to say 'Lab West'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.71.183.2 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Changed the infobox to "Lab West", I might revise that after looking at the 2006 census.Sandwedge 03:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Went to the census site, Lab West is not considered a region. Also, Happy Valley-Goose Bay is larger than Labrador City, and any other comunity in Labrador. Will be changing the article to reflect that.Sandwedge 03:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to 2011 census data accessed in 2014, Labrador City has larger population. Population tables have been updated in accordance with this data. Gierszep (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Population?

It appears that Labrador is losing population. Someone who knows more needs to add if this is true and why —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.16 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Most regions of Newfoundland and Labrador outside of the Northeast Avalon are losing population. The province as a whole has gone from approximately 568,000 to 508,000 in the last 15 years, so Labrador's population loss is in correlation with that. The reasons are very simple and no mystery --- economics, plus demographic trends. Rural areas that aren't near larger centres are shrinking across Canada, unless they have a specific reason (resource extraction or, possibly, tourism) to keep them stable or make them grow. While this is very sad, I don't see that it should be in the article, as it's not a phenomenon that's special or specific to Labrador. Trollcollins 21:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Area of Labrador

Although the name might suggest Labrador Retrievers came from Labrador, Canada, the breed actually originated in Newfoundland in the 1500s. At the time, small water dogs were bred with Newfoundlands to create a breed called the St. John's Water Dog or Lesser Newfoundland.

to do

The timeline section of the article currently states:

1498: Sighted by João Fernandes Lavrador
1498: Visited by John Cabot
1500: Visited by Gaspar Corte-Real
1534: Visited by Jacques Cartier
1763: Labrador is transferred from the French colony Canada to the British colony Newfoundland as per the Treaty of Paris.

So, in the 230 years between Cartier's visit and the Treaty of Paris, some French settlement was implied. When and how much? Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Innuit vs. Innu vs. Métis

I think, we need an expert's hand here. When I was in Labrador, I was told that Innu, Innuit and Métis were different first nations; also, each of them has an own article. Could soméone with more knowledge in this area clarify the issue in this article? Thanks, Lost Boy (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost Boy: Easy: Innu, Inuit (spelling) and Métis. All is clear now, no expert needed. Peter Horn User talk 22:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Labrador - Description

The text talks about there being an alternate landing site for "the" space shuttle. Is it being referenced to some one and only space shuttle? Also, the Happy Valley-Goose Bay link has no such mention. So, I understand this statement is: (1) grammatically incorrect and (2) either (a) false or (b) information missing on the dedicated page. If the fact is true, citing sources would be in order. --ElectroKid (☮ • ✍) 18:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"semi-triangular shape"

What's that supposed to mean? Half of a triangle is usually also a triangle. Did you mean "roughly triangular"? --BjKa (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smallwood Reservoir and the Churchill (Grand) River

Re: "During the 1960s, the Churchill River (Labrador name: Grand River) was diverted at Churchill Falls, resulting in the flooding of an enormous area – today named the Smallwood Reservoir ..."

I don't think this is quite right. I recently read (in Dear Everybody by Anne Budgell) that the reservoir was created by damming up the streams that drain(ed) the Labrador Plateau (which is a high basin, now filled by the reservoir). This did indeed leave greatly reduced flows for the Churchill River, but it's still there, including the Falls. There is a current project to dam the river at Muskrat Falls (not far inland from Goose Bay) and later at Churchill Falls.

AlStonyBridger (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic Features

In the demographics table that contrasts adherents of various religions in Labrador vs. the rest of Canada, the percentages add to roughly 105% for Labrador and only abut 80% for the rest of Canada. I don't know the true numbers but the ones shown here make no sense: both columns should add up to very close to 100% given the presence of "no religion" and "other religion" as options. 184.175.48.100 (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Demographics table is not consistent with the reference - the 2001 Statscan census data. The Labrador differences are numerous and significant (eg unemployment of 7% vs 19%). Furthermore, I looked for equivalent 2011 census data but could not find it. Unless someone has a better reference, I will update the 2001 values to the 2001 Statscan values. Gierszep (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the population and population density in the summary box are odd. Population is listed as "2014" but the reference is the 2011 census and the number is different. And the density is not correct given the area (which is correct). I will change to align with 2011 numbers that are referencable. Gierszep (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent idea. I've tried to work out the discrepancies between statistical information a couple of times, but have given up. As per your observation, the 2011 census data was not sortable in the same manner as the previous data. Dated information is preferable to misleading (or, basically, WP:OR) stats. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Updated to 2006 census data. I have changed some items to correspond to those that are directly reported in the census data and are available for Labrador. (E.g. "Religion" was not available this way so I have dropped it from this table.) As of 2006, Labrador is tracked as two Census Divisions; I have combined these two into a single Labrador value where the math is direct but reported them separately otherwise (ie. for median values). Comments? I think this is better than before but there may be ways to improve it further. Gierszep (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a better approach. This article gets little attention, and creating comprehensive data that requires the collation of stats that are difficult to verify and keep updated is a disservice to the readers. In the second instance, I don't see why such comprehensive demographic are necessary for a region in Canada. In other words, the statistics you removed were WP:UNDUE in light of the subject of the article. Thanks for your good work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic composition

Pleas add Ethnic and language composition--Kaiyr (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I am removing the alternative theory of Joseph Pope about slaves who made good manual workers for the Portuguese, since the word would be lavrador in Portuguese (labrador is Spanish). – Fayenatic London 21:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the title to be in italics

There is no need for Labrador to appear in italics in our title. werldwayd (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Werldwayd: You're right and I tried to fix it, but saw no {{Italic title}} or anything in the infobox that italicizes it. Miniapolis 21:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally figured it out; I set the blank italic-title parameter in {{Infobox court case}} to no. Miniapolis 21:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpin map doesn't work

The current push pin map does a bad job of explaining what Labrador is. It looks like Labrador is a specific point on that map, like a village or a city in the centre of Labrador. An image like this would be more effective. - 129.242.129.238 (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need for edit

The History, 20th Century section has this incomprehensible statement: "the site was previously operated by Cleveland cliffs Canada who even rly became the owners from the original mine founders pickers & matthers". Eemstewart (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I have undone the edit that added the virtually random sequence of words. 00:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Indefatigable (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]