Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Alberta

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 2604:3D09:6E83:6B00:E4CE:66B9:CC55:1A70 in topic Section names
Learn more about this page

Arts capital of province

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article says "In addition, Edmonton, with the proximity of government and influence of the University of Alberta, has become the artistic and cultural hub of Alberta." This is outdated as Calgary was recognized as being a cultural capital of Canada by the federal government. This is not to say Calgary has usurped the title of cultural hub, but at the very least this line should be removed from the article. http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1318855866065/1318855809375 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.166.68 (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Section names

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The language in the 'Oilers vs. Flames' section shows a definite Oilers bias; ie the Oilers have won five while the Flames have won "just one", while the Flames playoff run in 2004 gets a brief mention and the Oilers run last season gets a detailed sentence. And why mention that the Oilers won first? Isn't that obvious? Yeah, I am a Flames fan. Sbmcmull

If no one disagrees I suggest renaming the sections to something with less abbreviations and propused knoledge. Not everyone know why Eskimos and Stampeders would want to fight, but they might know what Canadian foot ball is. So I suggest:

  • Oilers vs. Flames ---> Ice Hockey
  • Eskimos vs. Stampeders ---> Canadian Football
  • U of A vs. U of C ---> Universities

Any objections? Kevlar67 00:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Other than "University", I would object, for now, as those sections do deal specifically with those teams. However, Calgary and Edmonton do, and have, battled in many other leagues in hockey and football, and lacking an expansion of the article to include those, I would think that leaving the current titles is preferable. Resolute 00:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have to say that I object as well. While there are many 'Battle of Alberta' games in many sports, this one is dedicated to hockey, and I believe it plays a large part in our hockey history. It's legendary and deserves it's own place.

This article contains opinion only. It begins with the first sentence of the "origins" section being completely false. The Canadian Pacific Railway NEVER had plans to go through Edmonton. The CPR was directed by the Canadian Government to follow a route as close to the US border as possible to ensure Canadian Sovereignty (see the CPR website as one resource for more detail). The first route would have taken the train through the Crowsnest Pass, but that was put aside when the Kicking Horse and Roger's passes were chosen instead.

The second point (about Edmonton being chosen as capital) is partially correct, but the reason that Strathcona (the only city in Alberta to EVER lose it's city charter - so it could be absorbed into Edmonton) was chosen for the U of A gets interesting when factual information is presented. Strathcona was not anything before the new Alberta Government made a statement about needing a university in the city to the south of Edmonton. Calgary, thinking that getting this university would partially compensate for losing the bid to become the capital of Alberta, was shocked to hear the announcement that a new city to be created (Strathcona) would be the seat of the university. This is where the actual 'rivalry' began.

In my opinion, this article should be removed unless verifiable sources and factual information are presented.

Tom Davis February 5, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.223.7 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The topic is notable, so removing it is not an option. It does require cleanup though, and has been on my long range plans for that for some time. If you have some good sources that will help clean-up and correct the history, that would be most appreciated. The origins certainly do require cleanup - including a stronger mention of the cronyism that led to Edmonton being named the capital, for which the Calgary papers of the time were most bitter. On the sporting side however, the battle predated the province itself, at least in the hockey rink, where games between the cities had taken place since about 1896, often violently. Resolute 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

To the critics

edit

The settlers in areas like Edmonton and Saskatoon had always assumed that the CPR would follow the parkland belt since it was the best farmland and there was existing settlement, and avoid Palliser's Triangle since this was considered a wasteland. The southern route was selected, partly as you say to promote Canadian soverignty in the Prairies, but also to undercut land spectulators who had been buying up land around settlements like Fort Victoria or Edmonton, hoping to be bough out by the CPR or at least see the land value go up when the CPR came through. The CPR didn't want to run to existing settlements for exactly that reason, and by choosing the southern route the company was able to create and control new towns like Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. This was a common policy for all the railway companies, on the Grand Trunk they named the new towns in alphabetical order as display of the companies absolute and arbitary powers. Also, I provided a source, if you have other sources that refute this, let's see 'em. Kevlar67 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I wasn't challenging the CPR statement specifically, merely the overall state of the article. It could be a lot better, and I hope to help improve it over the next little while. Resolute 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dresdin Archibald Dec 10, 2022 - 2604:3D09:6E83:6B00:E4CE:66B9:CC55:1A70 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)You also forgot to mention the hockey rivalries between the two cities in the 1945-1970 period when Senior Amateur and Minor Pro hockey dominated the sports pages. Stampeders vs. Flyers, etc. Please update.Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of Alberta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Alberta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Alberta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Political leaning impartiality/citations

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There isn't a single citation for any of the information in the Political Leanings section. Without any citations this section reads more like an original-work anti-Calgary manifesto than an encyclopedia entry. This section needs either a substantial rework, or at least some citations to back up some of its more provocative claims. Bergallanj (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would support having the entire section being completely overhauled or removed entirely from the article, seeing as how its entirely unsourced and reads like its original research. In any case I added a maintanance tag on it for now Leventio (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Alberta&oldid=1205819126"