Talk:Alma Parish, New Brunswick

Saint John County

Moved here verbatim from my own talk page, as this seems the proper place.

---

Get it straight, Please. Alma Parish resided in what was Saint John County. Do not roll back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placeographer77 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

YOur Majesty. "WHEREAS his most gracious Majesty, by his Royal Letters Patent under the Great Seal of this Province, bearing date the 18th day of May, 1785, was pleased to erect and constitute into one distinct and separate County, all that tract or district of Land situate in this Province, bounded southerly on the Bay of Fundy, easterly by Hopewell Township, and a line running from the north-west corner of said Township, due north into the Country, northerly by a line running east-north-east, and west-south-west, from the southern-most point of the Kennebeckacis Island, lying at the mouth of the river Kennebeckacis, where it joins the river Saint John, and westerly by a due north line from point Le Proe, in the Bay of Fundy aforesaid. And did thereby ordain, establish and declare that all and singular the Lands and Waters comprised within the limits aforesaid, should forever thereafter be, continue and remain a distinct and separate County, and including the City of Saint John, should be called, known and distinguished by the name of the City and County of Saint John."

CeasePlaceographer77 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Part of Alma County was part of Saint John but the county line was moved west eight years before Albert County was erected and 17 years before Alma was erected. The northern boundary of Saint John County didn't change, just the eastern one. Not even all of the modern village of Alma was south of the county line. And please produce proof that the modern Alma-Harvey boundary is the same as the western boundary of Hopewell before its expansion.

I've gone through every single iteration and amendment of the Territorial Division Act from its inception and have them all on my computer. I've even run the text through a text comparison site.

You have replaced properly cited material with disproven myth that has even been corrected on the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick website, both county guides and specific entry for the county.

Please fully consult cited material before making further edits. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I wrote my response before you edited yours, I'll say stop citing something from 1785 as if nothing changed until seventy years later. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton @User:Tali64^2 Please provide your source for where "Alma is sometimes erroneously described as including part of [[Saint John County,Alma is sometimes erroneously described as including part of [[Saint John County,"

Perhaps there is a common mistake you are trying to clear up. Please provide where this is found to be mistaken. It's not a valuable contribution to the article as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placeographer77 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The contention is that: "Alma is sometimes erroneously described as including part of Saint John County...." where is it sometimes erroneously written? Please cite this assertion for it to stand, awkwardly as it does. And what jurisdiction are you referring to? Alma village Proper? Alma Parish? Alma LSD? There needs to be clarification of the jurisdiction for an assertion to be readable.

".... but the county line was moved west in 1837,[6] eighteen years before the parish was erected."

What does the moving of the line have to do with whether Alma ______ (Fill in the blank) is sometimes erroneously described as including part of saint john County? The fact is, Alma (the current municipal entity) in its entirety along the sea coast, was in what was Saint John County at one time, the time when the aformentioned county extended to the Hopewell township. As records will reveal

Note user G. Timothy Walton did not transcribe, verbatim or otherwise, from his talk page the following in response to his assertions (that were in response to my concern about his edits) like he has with the above.

"@G. Timothy Walton Alma Parish significantly resides in what was Saint John County, That boundary remains whether you know it to or not. A segment of The northern part of the boundary had changed, as the course change of the norther boundary [of hopewell parish] caused the intersection of the two to be further to the south.

I am not doing as you say, that is, citing something as if nothing has changed. Stop invalidating the progression of jurisdictions that are the origins of the parish territory, because you do not understand those progressions... regardless of the volume of divisions you have gone through. Comprehend that if you want to discover early registry documents in and for Alma or salmon river settlement in new brunswick, you will need to consult the saint john county registry. Perhaps you would see it of more value from the perspective of someone doing searches of the historical county land registry to see why that information is important and completely valid and encyclopedic.

Again if I understand correctly that there are challenges to the information, it does not permit the removal of the contribution to the article. While I see the value in the work you do, the proprietary outlook is something I'm asking you to visit. Again. Placeographer77 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placeographer77 (talk • contribs)

@Placeographer77 "The fact is, Alma (the current municipal entity) in its entirety along the sea coast, was in what was Saint John County at one time"

Consult Regulation 85-6 under the Municipalities Act, then look at the cadastral maps (142 and 152) of the area. You'll see that the prolongation of the northern boundary of Saint John County (only the eastern boundary of which shifted south in 1837, not the northern) runs south of the northern boundary of the village of Alma.

[This sentence omitted because I sounded like a prat] G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, what I pasted was what was on my talk page at the time I copied it. Further submission from you came after the text was copied. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

---

@Placeographer77 I'm going to take advantage of insomnia and try to come up with something helpful.

I think we're talking about two different types of jurisdiction and stumbling over some of the wording.

From your comment, I conclude you're working from the country land registries as a significant source of early information on the parishes and relating that to the boundaries of the parishes as they change. I don't think you're referring to ecclesiastical registers. Am I incorrect in these two conclusions?

I am working from the provincial legislation that actually erected the parishes and most of the counties and was the only legal way that boundaries changed after the Letters Patent of 1785. Ganong is mainly useful for maps but I don't rely on him for boundaries. Have I given an incorrect impression of what I'm using for my main information sources?

I've been editing these articles based on the assumption that I'm not the only person that ever wanted this information but couldn't find it accurately summarised anywhere. The idea of leaving out the difficult-to-find information in favour of a shallower restatement of what can easily be found elsewhere seems pointless. When the work that I've done is replaced with verifiable information that lacks citation, sometimes erasing information actually verified by sources I've cited in favour of errors that also lack citation, becoming defensive is difficult to avoid.

Yes, there's a proprietary outlook creeping through but it's quite overshadowed by a dislike of edits that evince a lack of actually checking the cited sources before dismissing the accuracy of material. I can't stamp either out. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)