Talk:Vancouver/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Four Pillars

Would someone write an article about the city's Four Pillars drug strategy and link it to the Vancouver, Downtown Eastside, and Commercial Drive Wikipedia pages? It's a big issue in Vancouver. --Corvus 15:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Religion

religion stats are in two sections. Having it in lifestyle makes more sense to me, but the one under ethnicity is a bit better. Move it maybe? gorffy 03:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I would think that some people might object to referring to religion as a "lifestyle." As mentioned below, the section needs work. Perhaps we would retitle it "Ethnicity and religion." Sunray 15:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've modified the bit about Ismailis since many Ismailis are not from Uganda but from other countries of East Africa, from which they were not expelled but in which they found the environment increasingly hostile.Bill 19:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

2nd Biggest Port?

The article claims "Vancouver has North America's second largest port after New York." Is this true? That means it would have to outrank the famously large ports of both San Francisco/Oakland and Los Angeles, as well as any ports on the US east coast (Boston, Houston, etc).

• If you read the article it says that Vancouver is the second largest port on the WESTCOAST behind LA. - anonymous
• When you talk about the Port of Vancouver, you include Deltaport and all the terminals around Vancouver Harbour. Port of Vancouver is the largest in Canada and competes with the major ports of North America. "The Port of Vancouver is large by world standards. In North America, the Port of Vancouver ranks number one in total foreign exports. On the West Coast of North America, the Port of Vancouver ranks number one in total cargo volume. In Canada, it ranks number one in total cargo handled and number one in total container throughput. "[1]

Prior to a huge dockstrike in the early 1970s, the Port of Vancouver was the largest/busiest port on the west coast of North America, exceeding in volume the combined tonnage of ALL OTHER PORTS combined (Prince Rupert, Seattle-Tacoma, Portland, San Fran/the Bay Area, LA and San Diego (this may have excluded military shipping, I'm not sure). During the dock strike there were over a hundred - hundreds? - of freighters stuck in English Bay; like a floating city; and the word was out that the rediversion of traffic to other terminals would wind up being permanent, and sure 'nuff the Port, though busy, never regained its former pre-eminence.Skookum1 17:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hongcouver and Vansterdam newtext

I excerpted your new additions/definitions to the wordlist because:

• a) they're not accurate, and the second one is highly propagandistic; the first is just evasive
• b)

They were:

• Hongcouver: in reference to high density high rise residences, similar to those in Hong Kong, and which house many emigrants from there)
• Vansterdam: (in reference to a weakly controlled drug culture, also present in Amsterdam)

I'll avoid potentially cutting comments ("you've never been to Amsterdam, have you?" and worse). Our downtown and highrise culture resembles New York a lot more than it does Hong Kong, but we don't call it VanYorker or anything like that; and I can tell you straight you that's not where Hongcouver came from - that may be the media mythology, or the oral culture about it now, but it's not how it started. Politically toned of course, because of the p.c. multiculturalism thing, but if you're going to define it; define it right; don't just put in something to make yourself feel comfortable; or to snoot your nose at the drug culture on East Hastings, which is obviously what you're talking about; although I suspect you consider the Marijuana Cafes in the 100-block west, which is really New Amsterdam, just as bad as the open crack/heroin/speed market two-and-a-half blocks further down. Hongcouver is rarely seen anymore anyway because, even though it was invented by Chinese kids during the outmigration from Hong Kong, early on, it was adopted to mean something derisive; or was claimed to be. It was all over the newspapers for a while when the National Geographic even had it as the title of an article on the city and SUCCESS raised a stink about it and all that; but the fact is that the word exists, and can be documented - and doesn't need preachy definitions over. "Vansterdam" is about the marijuana culture (more than the marijuana business, which has different slang names); Vansterdam is about being able to light up without spending a year in jail or getting beat up by a cop. Hongcouver is about the flavour of the city since the influx; that's all; and non-Chinese use it both derisively and just casually, in reference to the era (it was quite a different place before, y'see); it's not necessarily an ugly word, but to sensitive ears it can be. Neither of your definitions would stand up long on Wikipedia, I don't think; too propagandistic, too preachy.Skookum1 16:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Woah, relax. Take a read through Wikipedia:Assume good faith and take a breather. I agree that the addition was inaccurate, and I think it was unnecessary to boot, but we have to refrain from ascribing malicious intent for the health of the project and for our own individual sanity.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Without some explanation, these names are not informative to readers, and serve only as a source of titillation and/or irritation to readers and editors --JimWae 05:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the explanation thing; but how to define them without raising hackles, as you also observe. My problem with the ones I took out is that they were heavily biased on the one side (especially the latter) and obfuscatory on the other (the first one, giving a totally wrong perspective on the origin of the name; and the area in Vancouver that's all high-rises is the West End - well, plus Yaletown/Downtown South and Coal Harbour now - but the mold was set between Burrard and Stanley Park, and was a result of unique local zoning rules (brought in after the construction of that first "wall" apartment building on Davie/Beach just between the Sylvia and Denman. Downtown was self-consciously built to look like a mini-New York; not a mini Hong Kong. Hongcouver's become one of those words like chinaman - from innocuous origins but adopted or sensitized to a derisive over time, or as in the case of Hongcouver nearly right away (1-3 years); Hongcouver was originally a "brag" name, and was offensive to us (pre-influx Vancouverites of all races, flavours, persuasions and cultures) - our city already had a name (or two). "Hongcouver" was largely ignored by everyone - distasteful to us, just puerile latchkey kids on the other side and a term the mainstream Chinese community, longtime and immigrant, would have no part of (remember "astronauts"? - I guess that should be in the word-list, too? Or not, huh?);

i dont know why vancouver is called hongcouver because most hong kongers live in richmond. -- Chinoiserie 17:24, November 29, 2005 (UTC)

2 reasons: 1) Vancouver is used as a name for the whole metropolitan region, not just the City of Vancouver proper and 2) it was the hk influx that DID change the city of Vancouver, and the metro area of Vancouver; that once the influx solidified and "chose its turf" it happened to be Richmond is a later situation, not to do with the time the word became audible/in vogue/denounced.Skookum1 06:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It was when the National Geographic in all innocence used it for a story-title - in a piece on the HK migration to Vancouver and the changes it had made and that were coming - that the anti-racist trumpets came out and the magazine was condemned for embarrassing the Chinese community with a racist title on their article; I think I remember the Nat'l Geog Soc defending its right to use a word that was in circulation; and I think even their article mentioned its street origins; as opposed to SUCCESS' position that it was inherently racist. I'm not getting heated by the way; I'm just laying out the events; my comments to him weren't meant to come across heated; a bit contemptuous maybe, sure; trying to give my reasons for excerpting the stuff without slashing him too much over what he'd put in. His definitions were of the order of thing that "we" would have to do a bulletin-board thing on what people think the name means; if he can make up his own and post it, why can't everyone else? So I've been careful NOT to put in my own definitions, even when I added things to the list; unless they were neighbourhood specific as in the People's Republic of East Vancouver (aka "The Drive" or maybe the COPE-voting crowd). And I think I put a tag in there about "The Big Smoke", lately coopted by TO. As for the list, if any definitions, then simple, very simple, and somehow consensual; ideally to fit in one line, or two max.

Or we can evolve a policy about no names of a certain kind or other, i.e. if they require controversial or "flavoured" definitions. Not sure how we got about that but I do agree Wikipedia is no place for difficulties of this kind; it winds up being self-censorship in the long run but otherwise the place would be run amok with political opinion. I notice on certain pages throughout BC, and I imagine it's the same worldwide, that people use Wiki to grandstand their political campaigns, or "rewrite" history for their own agenda, or according to their own comforts/discomforts. The guy who posted the weird definitions - the sordid kind of thing you see in The Province's letters column, in fact - was one of these guys uncomfortable with the one word, and wanting to raise the anti- stakes in the information-war-on-drugs in the BC media; or just hopelessly out of touch. So for all these reasons, and more if we all stopped and talked about it, which is just as time-wasteful, is maybe to come up with a way to decide which words are in and which words are out, if they start causing problems.

Vancouver is a controversial place; not just extremes but their polarities and multipolarities of conflicting viewpoints; and language gets real touchy, especially with the way Wikipedia allows readers to wade in and rewrite things (and revert them, thankfully) the safest things to write are terse and empty, like a travel brochure or maybe a Lonely Planet or Rough Guide but hopefully accurate and also written from a local viewpoint; I'll be writing BC history articles and some political profiles and am trying to be real careful to stay away from my own political perspectives when writing; it's to give the account and to try to be as fair as possible. But with language - individual words - it's a whole different lollipop. I'd put Willie Woodenshoes and The Headband in the Vander Zalm article and this other guy took them out because they were too over the top (as was the story about Tan Yu in the Bayshore that went with them); fine, keep it in, he says, but tone it down (how???) and get your cites. Aw shucks....it's because of the political overtones; never assume that other people who are reading believe the same things you believe in, or should be made to read it if they don't believe it, or want the real truth, not your version of it; "real truth" here means "jes' the facts, ma'am". Writing history or politics or anything where there's more than one side to it is such a touchy thing....cover all the bases and keep your head low I guess.

So, should we cut controversial nicknames, then; or come up with a format/guideline for includable nicknames?Skookum1 06:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Heated or cool, contempt, condescension, and speculation about the motives of other editors are all discouraged. (As for the question of describing or not, I've no particular opinion to contribute.)  — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• If we cannot explain the ones that only a Vancouverite will know, they will have to be dropped. There's nothing wrong with controversy tho. I'd say "Hongcouver was the name used when a large number of immigrants from Hong Kong started arriving around the time Hong Kong was reverting to Chinese rule. The name was often used resentfully to reference the new-comers" I might add "who often had sufficient wealth to sustain the increased demand for housing that resulted, and real estate prices quickly inflated"" or something along those lines --JimWae 06:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Controversy's OK on a blog; not on an encyclopedia page. Your new revised, "improved" and seriously lengthened definition is heading towards a full article, not a one-line definition; other bits that, since you're at it, could be amended in your new version could be, for instance, "often used resentfully to reference the new-comers who had invented the name to brag about their takeover of the city" and the last bit is more like "who often had sufficient wealth to buy houses for cash, drastically increasing real-estate prices in the city and thereby disenfranchising people not able to afford HK-style housing prices, thereby generating resentment against the newcomers" It's either a full article, a one-liner as simple as "since the HK inmigration of the late 1980s, in reference to the new Chinese flavour of the city", or no mention of it at all. I'd rather the last one not be an option; so if there's a definition it has to be as neutral as possible (or SUCCESS will be all over us)Skookum1 22:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not from Vancouver, nor had I ever heard of Hongcouver, etc. until I visited this talk page, but I disagree with Skookum. Controversy's okay on a blog *and* an encyclopedia page, as long as it is correctly documented. NPOV is the rule to live by in regards to these things. I don't like any of your options mentioned. Descriptions of nicknames can easily be more than a single line or two (the word "paragraph" comes to mind) without in any way deserving a separate article. But I definitely agree that if a term like that is used, it should be mentioned here: we are not about avoiding touchy information, we are about including it while maintaining NPOV. Just my 2¢. --Cromwellt|Talk 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's NOT used, and that's the point. It was a flash-in-the-pan and more of a media bleat than anything else; its original appearance here was accompanied by two or three completely WRONG stories of its origin, including that it was a "racist expression" and another guy who claimed was because it looked like Hongkong. Nope, it's because the Chinese astronaut-kids who started swaggering around, boasting they owned the place, invented the name; and the National Geographic thought it was apt, and used it for a headline; next thing you know S.U.C.C.E.S.S. and the usual politicos (Victor Yukmun Wong, Jenny Kwan), are demanding an apology from the National Geographic and denouncing white racism in high knee-jerk fashion. Its only mention here should be that there was a media controversy which falsely accused the white community of coining the term as a racist usage; when in fact it was a racist neologism from the "other" side. Double standards are nothing new in post-modern ideological tub-thumping, but it does get tiresome, especially in this burg (see comments about the driver's licensing scandal below....speaking of controversy....Skookum1 05:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the term has fallen out of its brief fashion, but it's still used. And it was used. So this can be treated encyclopedically: in context as a minor nickname, with references to its notable users and to the controversy. Factual and neutral. --Ds13 06:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Dickens"??

Quote entirety of dubious neighbourhood: Dickens, a small community in East Vancouver that stradles Kingsway between Fraser and Knight Streets. The area is culturally diverse and is known for a cuisine that is equally varied, excellent and inexpensive (especially Vietnamese and Chinese).

Dickens? When did that name get coined? I've never heard it and I've lived in Vancouver all my life. We had family at 13th and Clark, basically the same neighbourhood, and I knew and know people up on the south side of Kingsway there, too. Dickens? Is that because of the elementary school somewhere around there, i.e. Sir Charles Dickens? But I've never heard the name applied to the neighbourhood around there. More like part of Grandview toward Knight, sort of Mount Pleasant around Kingsway and Fraser. Citation please.....

---

I live in this neighbourhood (at Kingsway and Windsor). I've seen a few sources that call the area "Dickens". It's probably named after Dickens School. That being said, it's a pretty poor name, IMHO.

I've also seen "Saigon", which, while apt, is neither descriptive or in good taste.

According to the City, the neighbourhood is called "Kensington-Cedar Cottage", [2] with the area north of Kingsway as "Cedar Cottage" and the area south of Kingsway as "Kensington". This is reflected in the provincial electoral district of Vancouver-Kensington and the Cedar Cottage Public House at Clark and Kingsway.

I hope that clarifies things. --m. 18:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Dickens" refers to the community between Fraser St (western boundary) Knight St (eastern boundary), 25th Ave (southern bound.) and 12th (northern boundary). It is a subset of the large KCC area, described above. Kensington-Cedar Cottage is not a neighbourhood - it is a large area (effectively between Broadway to 41st (N-S) and Fraser to Nanaimo (W-E)). The Dickens name is form the two (2) schools named Dickens in this area. Here's a couple of Dickens references [3] [4]

Kensington-Cedar Cottage is two neighbourhoods: Kensington and Cedar Cottage. Usgnus 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, where did the name come from? Newspapers make up dubious names for things all the time, so those two references aren't necessarily reliable in this. Something about the history of the name, or some evidence of common usage would be ideal. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this all moot now? There are no neighbourhood descriptions in the article any more, other than the West End, the Downtown Eastside, Chinatown, and a brief mention of the "multicultural" neighbourhoods: Punjabi Market, Little Italy, Greektown, Japantown, Commercial Drive, and a series of Koreatowns Usgnus 22:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What the Dickens!? Lived on the East side of Van for 25 years and I've never heard of it. Some locals certainly may use the term, but it isn't official that's for sure. Blastfromthepast 00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hongcouver again

I re-edited the latest emendation of the story of this word, putting in the ACTUAL history of the term instead of the fabricated one popular with people who toss the word "racism" around just a little bit too casually. Rewriting history to suit one's own particular ethnic prejudices is a common fault of the "new Canadians" and it gets really tiresome. Hongcouver was invented by Chinese, but somehow white people are the ones guilty of it. Figure that one out. I already have: if something is uncomfortable, disavow it, condemn it, revise the history surrounding it. Hongcouver (which never was in wide use, and only became a big deal because of the NatGeog's use of it) is no more racist than the OTHER Chinese-invented names for Vancouver (New China City, for instance), which are widely perceived in the non-Chinese community/ies as aggressive and arrogant. Curiously enough, the same people who bleat about Hongcouver and other "racist" issues themselves can be heard using the derogatory Chinese words for other ethnic groups; Gwai Lo, Hak gwai and worse. But that's OK, because "only white people can be racist"....... Right, sure, OK, whatever you say.....

Either a simple account of this name, without a judgemental statement like "racist moniker", is given, or it should be omitted entirely and consigned to the dustbin of history.

Here's a little factoid: surveys have shown that the Canadians LEAST likely to have "racist attitudes" are of European origin; all other groups had much higher racist attitudes towards other groups, including negative and hostile feelings towards whites as a group.Skookum1 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a postscript for you: how 'bout a story about the huge drivers licensing scandal c.1990, and what was pronounced a "racist" perception that because 98% of those who bribed the examiners were Chinese, then they shouldn't be prosecuted BECAUSE IT WOULD BE RACIST BECAUSE 98% of them were Chinese. OK, that's a really novel use of the word "racist", isn't it? As a result, only a handful were prosected (ethnically balanced in composition, no doubt, but not reflective of the actual plurality). Any other new citizen who sought to bribe an official "because that's how it's done in our culture" would have charges laid against them, and maybe their citizenship revoked; in this case an entire community pronounced the larger community "racist" for even daring to point out that they had collectively AND WILFULLY flouted the laws all the rest of us are supposed to observe......Hiding behind "culture" an excuse for such actions is in and of itself racist, and smacks of extraterritoriality - of separate justice for different ethnic groups. And THAT'S really racist, not cry-wolf racist. Skookum1 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese people calling prosecution racist because it targeted the actual perpetrators (who happened to mostly be Chinese)? Convoluted and outrageous in my opinion. Is there an article on this? If not, there should be (NPOV, of course). --Cromwellt|Talk 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Sounds like the white man really has it rough in Vancouver - all those Chinese trying to bribe him and everything. Guess that's what happens when he leaves his white ghetto in ShaughnessyBobanny 17:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic breakdown revision underway

"European" should be given its appropriate ethnic background, or Chinese, "other Asian" and Filipino are combined into "Asian" and other continentally-defined groups are given fair coverage. German, Italian and Ukrainian especially should be represented/listed, as well as the "invisible minorities" of the new immigrants from Eastern European and South America and elsewhere, who ethnic-colour politicks define simply as "European", which is really a euphemism for "white" which has little context in Vancouver's longstanding multiethnic diversity. If I can find the breakdown, Scots, Welsh and Irish should be separate from English.Skookum1 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it: not sure what to do about "multiple responses", indicating mixed background although further undefined. Here's the info for Greater Vancouver, copy-pasted from Census Canada's tables; wikitable later when I have time: Columns in order are Total responses sgl responses mtlpl responses

• Total population 1,967,480 1,226,280 741,195
• English 475,075 112,910 362,165
• Canadian 378,545 141,110 237,435
• Chinese 347,985 312,180 35,800
• Scottish 311,940 41,920 270,020
• Irish 234,680 23,125 211,555
• German 187,410 44,470 142,945
• East Indian 142,060 123,570 18,495
• French 128,715 15,060 113,655
• Ukrainian 76,525 18,150 58,375
• Italian 69,000 29,665 39,335
• Dutch (Netherlands) 67,165 21,115 46,050
• Filipino 61,550 48,510 13,050
• Polish 51,385 14,625 36,760
• Norwegian 41,545 5,810 35,735
• North American Indian 40,670 11,745 28,925
• Welsh 36,780 2,745 34,035
• Russian 34,740 6,480 28,255
• Swedish 33,220 3,420 29,805
• Korean 29,180 27,745 1,440
• Japanese 27,035 18,880 8,155
• American (USA) 24,860 1,995 22,865
• Vietnamese 22,865 18,450 4,420
• Spanish 22,155 5,000 17,160
• Jewish 22,130 8,135 13,985
• Iranian 20,490 17,945 2,540
• Hungarian (Magyar) 20,230 7,385 12,845
• Danish 19,755 4,550 15,210
• Austrian 17,150 2,800 14,355

I suspect that the previous data may have made the racist assumption that "Canadian" and "American (USA)" and "French" all meant white ("European"), but this could be anything but the case; also of note are the relative rates of intermarriage that can be interpolated, i.e. the low number of single-response for Swedes, Russians etc. vs the multiple responses (mixed-blood people). Also a given that "French" here is as much from France as from Quebec (at least).

This is a far more accurate list; why its data was laid out in "European", Chinese, "other Asian" and Filipino is fairly obvious; but also obviously heavily biased in favour of fluffing up the importance of one ethnic group, while still trying to portray it as a minority. NOT including Filipino in "other Asian" is also a sign that the previous data was organized from the viewpoint of a certain racial/ethnic set of biases (the argument that the Phillippines are islands and not on Asia falls flat on its face since Japanese was included in "other Asian" and yet Japan is obviously not on the Asian continent either; nor, for that matter, is Britain or Ireland on the European continent.

This article has a long way to go before it actually represents the reality of Vancouver, and avoids the usual celebration of one ethnic group over any other......Skookum1 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

List/table of cities in BC

This is rep'd from its own origin, but it appears to list Vancouver suburbs as separate, which in provincial terms isn't quite right as they're really part of Greater Vancouver (North VAncouver, Maple Ridge, Richmond, etc.); as a result of listing things by population ranking only a lot of important regional centres have been completely omitted (Cranbrook, Trail-Castlegar-Nelson, Williams Lake, etc.)

Added April 18th 2006: This article is on Vancouver NOT the Fraser Valley and beyond. The GVRD goes as far as Langley, mabye Chilliwack, but Cranbrook? and Castlegar? Castlegar is usually considered part of the Kootenays or the Okanagan.

Also a mention should be made of the City of Vancouvers neighbourhood, even if it's just a list. Many other articles on city have in depth descriptions of each district, Vancouver should have at least the names of each neighbourhood.

There is a description of many of Vancouver's neighbourhoods at the end of the Architecture section (see List of interesting places in Vancouver. Sunray 06:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Photo gallery

I moved a dozen or so pictures that were spread throughout the article in a <gallery> under Vancouver#Interesting_places. Some two more dozen clog the page. Some images are at the right place and serve a purpose, some just litter the article. If those pictures are not removed altogether from the Vancouver page, I suggest to group them in the photo gallery, eventualy move that at the end of the page. Qyd 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

End of History?

How come the history section ends with the fire, around the turn of the century? I'm sure something happened between 1900 and now. --Andrew Eisenberg 00:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It takes a while to write this stuff; that wasn't my contribution although I emended it; but the deal is "garbage in, garbage out" so anyone can create the skeleton of the next century; but even that's a lot of work and you have to know your stuff.Skookum1 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dominion Building has a nice photo for the early 20th century section. Usgnus 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ideas and opinions: size of article

Someone definitely needs to create a page on the Port of Vancouver. It is mentioned several times throughout the article. Also, it would probably be a good idea to move the largest sections (such as Economy, History, and Sites of interest) to separate pages with a short summary and a dab link left here. That way we avoid an extremely long article (73k!). Modularization is a good thing. Finally, the Sites of interest section (or page, if/when it is moved) should be expanded. The only section mentioned (after the main paragraph) is the downtown peninsula. If that is all there is (which is contradicted in other parts of the article), why even mention it specifically? --Cromwellt|Talk 23:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to put this bloated child on a diet. Since March, 1, the behemoth has gained 7 KB. Your proposal is a good one, IMO. Perhaps others would comment if we changed the title and moved this down to the bottom of the page. Sunray 08:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is among the longest of all city articles I know of. I think it might even be longer than the article, Canada. It seems that large amounts of information (always in pros, never in point form, even when the latter would be appropriate) is added everyday, and it goes unchecked. As a result, there is a lot of repitition and a lot of uneccessary rambling. For example, does there really need to be both a "living" and a "lifestyle" section...? It's inane. Also, why are there FORTY photos in the gallery IN ADDITION to the ones interspersed through-out the page. Many of these should go in other articles. Many of them should never have left the WikiCommons. It's absolutely ridiculous. Take also the brand new "News Media" section. For one, there is already a article dedicated to media in the city. For two, all other Canadian city articles present this in point form. To be honest, I don't think a GENERAL article on Vancouver needs a discussion on CTV's "Chopper 9". I think the whole thing needs quite a bit of editing and clean-up before it can be a good, concise article. That's my bit, and I am prepared to help make it happen. --Arch26 09:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of people work on this article. We could really make it good, but right now it is far too long, and far too messy. Right now, I think that we need to create several sub-articles on the sections with too much information. Some sections like the neighbourhoods, and the photo gallery certainly need their own pages. To help coordinate the work effort, I am making a to-do list for this article. Please feel free to edit the list to your liking, and hopefully, let's get working towards writing a great article for a great city! Canuck89 06:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It just keeps getting bigger! We remove the Media Section, and now we have all this info about Transportation. I guess it is okay if we keep doing this, but we are just going to end up with a lot of sub-articles (which was our original intention anyways). So if no one objects, I will get started on those sub-articles. Canuck89 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Most other big Canadian cities have a separate article for neighbourhoods. I don't know why Vancouver doesn't. It really is unacceptably large. I don't think that sub-articles are the answer in every case. For example, Vancouver is not New York. It does not need a sub-article for something like transportation. The answer is to make it more concise. People have just got to look at what's there and look at the new edits, and make it say the same thing with fewer words. It's easier to read then. Otherwise you end up with a huge network of ridiculously long sub-articles too, and you will have a beast of a time finding any good information here. Sections that I think DO NOT need sub-articles (editing instead) include:

• Transportation
• History
• Demographics
• Sport

Otherwise, I think sub-articles are just as bad as wordy ones. --Arch26 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Canuck89, and the sections mentioned above are exactly the ones that would need (if not deserve) subarticles. Disagree with Arch26, there's no such thing as too much information, as long as it is well structured. Remember, different people have different interests. Qyd ^(talk)05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, information is not a bad thing. That is not my argument. I am arguing that a large part of this article is poorly written and in need of editing. In other words, I think the whole thing can be made dramatically shorter without necessarily removing information (ie/ by removing rambling statements, incorrect information, repitition, etc.). I think it would be a big mistake to make sub-articles for subjects that are simply in need of editing... that's just lazy. But I also hold my ground. Very few cities need subarticles for the sections I named above. I don't see how they could all be necessary unless one plans to add such a volume of information that it ironically, becomes impossible to find anything useful (there are certainly cases where too much information can be a bad thing). Movies are edited so that they are not all 6 hours long... these articles should be no different. --Arch26 08:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Arch, I think that by creating new sub-articles, we would also agree to help edit the main Vancouver page, and make it a good, concise article. For example, someone just added this whole "roads" sections, which is completely irrelevant and should be removed immediately from the main section, but could deserve some merit on the "Transportation in Vancouver" page. Now, what we need to do is choose which sections to create sub-articles for. I've put up a to-do list at the top of this page, so please add in the sections that you want created, as well as any other tasks that you feel are relevant to this page. Canuck89 16:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that everyone who has commented agrees that the article needs trimming. There is not unanimity on how to do that. However, there have been some suggestions. Let me add mine: I agree with Arch 26 that History, Demographics and Sport do not need sub-articles. Not sure about Transportation. The sections that I think are most in need of sub-articles are: Economy, Politics (for instance, details of elections do not need to be in the Vancouver article) and Neighbourhoods. Perhaps we could start with Neighbourhoods/Places of interest? I will put this on the To Do list. Sunray 20:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

More or less agree except about the History section; which as-is is incomplete and only on the doorstep of the 20th Century; I propose a condensed version for this page, and a separate, more in-detail History of Vancouver page (the terms of geographic reference of which would necessarily include the Lower Mainland, depending on the era).

I also suggest a term - "Vancouveritis" - for the penchant Vancouverites have for obsessing over minor details of the city's landscape/social/cultural/economy as if it were as important as NYC or London etc. The mutations and ongoing input/output in this article (including, admittedly, some of my own contributions/emendations) fit this description; it's only meant to be a brief entry, not a whole volume....I doubt Seattle (which is twice the size, and even more internetted) has as lengthy an article, or such a pretentious attitude about its own profile/importance.Skookum1 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much an echo of my own thoughts. Thanks. --Arch26 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Skookum, Seattle's article is one which we could take model from. First of all, it has reached Featured Article status, so maybe they are picky about their city as well. After a quick glance through the article, they have the following sub-articles: History, Demographics, Government and Politics, Education, Arts, Media, Transportation, Street Layout, Medical Facilities, and lastly, Utilities. Now we obviously don't need several of those, but I think that the example that you brought up, could be a fairly good template for our Vancouver page :). Canuck89 07:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Seattle's article is one we can use as a model for the format. I've added a few more of the longish sections in our article to the To do list, above. However, I think we do much better than they do in writing. How they do ramble on—even with sub pages the article is still way long! Sunray 07:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Media Section

What is the current thinking on whether the Vancouver entry should have anything on the city's news media. Some information I added was removed based on the argument that there is already a list of Vancouver media outlets. But this list doesn't give a very good overview of the city's media scene (for example, pointing out that The Vancouver Sun is a more influential media outlet than The Ubyssey) or differentiate news radio stations from music stations. It also provides no comment on the unusually high level of media concentration in the city. For now I've added my overview to the media list page, but I don't know whether anyone thinks whether at least a short summary of the city's media is worthwhile. I obviously do.Muckraker

I agree that your media entry should not be deleted, however, I do believe that it does not fully belong on this page. Based on the fact that we are trying to cut down the size of this article by using sub-articles, I will start a new article, Media in Vancouver. This article can obviously co-exist with the List of Vancouver media outlets. Canuck89 08:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good solution to me. Muckraker

Should visible minority stats replace (or accompany) ethinicity stats?

The page currently has figures based on the census' data for ethnicity in Greater Vancouver. This ethnicity data, however, is notoriously confusing and unreliable. This is in part because a lot of people, white and non-white, say they're "Canadian" -- while others, even if they've been here many generations, still identify with some ethnic identity. A white guy who says he's a mix of "English, Scottish and Irish" shows up in the data as multiple reponse, even though hardly anyone would consider a person like that "mixed" in the same way someone of mixed race is. In my view, the data on visible minority status -- while not perfect -- is a lot more reliable and gives a much better picture of the mix of people in this city. According to the 2001 data, the figures for that are:

 63.1% - Caucasian
 17.4% - Chinese
 8.4% - South Asian (Indo-Canadian)
 2.9% - Filipino
 1.9% - Aboriginal 
 1.5% - Korean
 1.4% - Southeast Asian (Thai, Vietnamese) 
 1.2% - Japanese
 1.1% - West Asian (Iranian, Afghani) 
 1.0% - Latin American
 0.9% - Black

Using visible minority status, only 0.6% of Greater Vancouver's population is mixed race.

Shouldn't that tell you something about the invalidity of such data? Vancouver has always had the highest marriage of interethnic (and interracial, which is a slightly different thing) in the whole of Canada; you can take that Aboriginal figure, for instance, and double it at least for people of mixed aboriginal-and-other descent. "Audible ethnicities" I'll get back to (like the bunch of elderly Croats I had coffee with this morning, who are "visible" in their own way, even if non-white people see them simply as white). I'll be back about all this with a more formal rebuttal to all this, but that one sentence above this paragraph struck me as so implausible, and so out of character with the reality of the city's social makeup, that I just had to remark on it as an example of why the ethnic breakdown as given is very inaccurate. One figure that does come to mind that SHOULD be in the article is the day/year when it was estimated that over half of the city's school-age households not speaking English went over 50%. Which suggests that your 63.1% Caucasian includes at least 13.1% who do not speak English at home (also not surprising, given the huge Eastern European influx in the last decade). What I'm partly on about was that Vancouver (and BC) was multicultural and multiethnic long before the government and p.c.-ism made those buzzwords (and policy); and also that interethnic marriage was VERY common; and not just between Scots, English and Irish as suggested above or below somewhere.Skookum1 06:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Aboriginal isn't technically listed as a visible minority, but separate figures on aboriginal status are available. I think these figures, which are available on the Statistics Canada website [5] should replace, or be provided in addition to, the ethnic origin stats. Thoughts? Muckraker

"Visible minority" is a neo-racist construct which completely obscures the make-up of the so-called Caucasian population (many of which is part-something else, be it aboriginal, black, or any one of the "Asian" ethnicities). If you're going to lump white people into "Caucasian" then NOT lumping the Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese, Southeast Asian and Chinese into "East Asian" is racist; same with not distinguishing between Sikhs, Hindus (Tamil or northern?) and South Indian Moslems and Jains. Why is it only the East Asian communities are "visible" in respect to each other? And as a speaker recent open-mic on multicultural input thing on GlobalTV pointed out, none of the "invisible minorities" had been invited (Eastern Europeans, white Latin/South Americans, southern Europeans, Brazilians etc.) - to which all the "visible" minority people looked uncomfortable and quickly changed the subject.

So I reject your proposed change/simplification, Muckraker - as an oversimplification and also inherently crypto-racist in tone. Minority status isn't about skin colour; it's about distinct communities; unless you can prove to me that there's a monolithic "Caucasian" culture that can be identified as such, what you're suggesting is a crock of s**t unless you also make "East Asian" into one category.Skookum1 18:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think one should be able to have a discussion about this issue without being subjected to accusations of racism. I'm not clear whether you think I'm being racist against whites or non-whites, or both. I'd simply point out that Statistics Canada collects both types of information, citizens themselves self-report both and governments, the media and ethnic communities use both sets of statistics when discussing the multiethnicity of the city.

I don't understand your arguments about how using the vis. min. stats results in "lumping" white people into Caucasian while breaking Asians into different groups. The way the page looks now, someone has taken the dozens of ethnic groups and done just that anyways -- creating one big category of "European".

Your posting also suggests that the purpose of ethnicity figures are to describe the size of "distinct communities". But I don't think either figure does that. Just because a bunch of people identify themselves as Irish, or Ukrainian or Pakistani doesn't mean that they are all necessarily part of a "community" -- something that suggests a level of common purpose and interaction.

Your posting also doesn't address the biggest problem with the ethnicity statistics: those that identify as "Canadian". This significantly throws off the numbers and makes it difficult to get any real sense of the ethnic makeup of the city.

I think the best course of action would be to include both types of information, clearly describing the difference between them. Muckraker

Muckraker has only used the same terminology that statisitcs canada uses. No, perhaps Caucasians should not be lumped, but they are. So unless you can find reliable data on the breakdown of European ethnic groups in Vancouver, and then make a case for ethnicities such as "Greek" being considered a visible minority (which they are NOT currently, by any government sponsered demographic study), then fine. Otherwise, provide a list of those groups which are defined as visible minority by the most reliable source of demographic information we have (that is, StatsCan). In Canada, Caucasians are not considered to be a visible minority, and nor are aboriginals, so deal with it and stop whining and reading racist undertones into a document that contains none. If this offends you, then write a letter to our goverment and leave the debate off Wikipedia (we did no come up with the classification, did we?). Until then, Wikipedia should be allowed to ue the same language, terminology and presentation as Statistics Canada (like every other city in North America where demographic information is provided... oh no, I forgot, high and mighty Vancouver is better than all of them. Oops). --Arch26 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. StatsCan's ethnic/racial blinkers/prejudices are a given in the land of official multiculturalism. If Greeks aren't given a separate category from other Caucasians, then StatsCan shouldn't be breaking things down racially on the one hand (Caucasians) and ethnically on the other (East Asians).

Here's my re-breakdown of the same stats:

63.1% - Caucasian
35.0% - East Asian
8.4% - Indo-Canadian
1.9% - Aboriginal
1.1% - West Asian (presumably including Arabs, but does this include North Africans?  Hmmm)
1.0% - Latin American (many of whom are actually Caucasian)
0.9% - Black (funny StatsCan uses that term and not African-Canadian or whatever the p.c. term is supposed to be; and again here lumping people together by colour, not culture).

It's that simple; pretending that East Asians can be broken into distinct groups while none of the others should be is just ASININE. That a federal agency perpetrates this bullshit is no reason why Wikipedia should parrot it.Skookum1 22:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You do know there is a differnce between "visible minority" and "ethnicity" right? "Black" is a visible trait and can only be considered racist if one attributes inequalities to that colour. Statistics Canada does not do this. "African" or "African-Canadian" is an ethnic description. And I should add, that it is extrememly narrow minded of you to assume that all Africans in Canada would consider themselves to be ethnically "Aftican-Canadian". Being African and living in Canada does not automatically imply that one is "African-Canadian". I think that to say that they all are is offensive to those who aren't(perhaps it's even a "racist" thing to say in the loose sense with which you choose to use the word). In addition, if you were to do some research at Statistics Canada's website you would learn that they DO make a distinction between "ethnicity" and "minority status". Chinese or Chinese-Canadian would constitute ethnicity. East Asian or Asian would constitute a minority status. They even conduct statistics on those Caucasians who are ethinically Greek, or German, or French, and so on. I suggest you not try to use Wikipedia as a stage for politcal debate. We use sources here for a reason (this is also policy), and our sources (and many users) disagree with you. Perhaps you should start you own online encyclopedia... Anyway, there is nothing wrong with having a disagreement with the way the goverment does things. Why not call your MP instead of re-writing references. Maybe you could also call the US Census Bureau and for that matter, every other census or statistics agency in the world... they are all such racist pigs. --Arch26 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted the information about visible minorities into the article but not included Caucasian. Statistics Canada doesn't technically count Caucasians in its visible minority status -- it was an assumption I made (total population - visible minorities = Caucasians) but probably shouldn't have. I think Skookum may be mistakenly assuming that these two sets of figures are somehow related -- ie., that StatsCan takes all the people that answered "Greek", "Irish" and "British" and then it decides they're all white. Rather, these are two separate data sets that the agency collects. I'm not sure exactly how the question is worded on the census, but I think it may simply ask the taker if they are a member of a visible minority group and, if so, which one. Technically, someone could probably say they are both of "Greek" ethnic origin and "Chinese" visible minority status (and this could even be true if they lived in a Chinese community in Greece before moving here). I personally don't know why StatsCan has several categories for East Asians and only one for "Latin American", "Black" and "South Asian". But that's how they collect the stats. As it stands, the article contains both ethnic origin and visible minority stauts. I think that makes the most sense. Does anyone other than Skookum disagree? Muckraker

Archive 2

I have archived all the topics that are at least 3 months old. Canuck89 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Government and Politics

I have created a new Government and politics of Vancouver page. It needs quite a bit of editing. In addition, I have listed all the MLAs and MPs from the city on that page. Does that mean that we can remove those listings from the main page template? They look quite out of place right now. Canuck89 05:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Canuck 89! I agree that the listings of MLAs and MPs can be removed from the Vancouver article. Sunray 06:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Size of article

This is a good article. However there has been discussion, above, on its increasing size; what might be called "wiki bloat." If everyone just continually adds their nuggets to the article it gets more and more unreadable. Our common objective here is to create the best encyclopedia in the world. Part of that involves having succinct well-written articles. It would be great if we could all keep that in mind, and those of us with editing skills work at improving the readibility of the article. How to improve readability? Shorter words, shorter sentences, well-organized content. Let's work at making this an example for Wikipedians of what a truly great city article looks like. Want to help out? Take a look at the "To do" list above. Discussion and suggestions are welcome. Sunray 03:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In preparation for deletion, I reorganized all the sections. Things were getting unwieldy. Usgnus 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice! The new headings are much simpler and clearer for readers. Sunray 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I archived the commented-out old infobox and saved 2K. :-) Usgnus 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First Image

Hi. I think that the first image of the city should be above the flag and coat of arms of the city, inside the template. This is the same format used by most major cities. eg. Dallas, Seattle, Boston. In addition, we need to use a picture that isn't 95% sky and water. Canuck89 15:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the {{British Columbia municipality infobox}} to add an optional photo. Then I moved the first photo on the Vancouver article to the infobox. Now someone else can replace the photo. Usgnus 18:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to Image:Vancouver ib.jpg. Check out commons:Vancouver for a broader choice of images. Kaveh 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

much better Usgnus 18:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

commons:Category:Vancouver is also useful. Usgnus 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Greater Vancouver Alliance for Culture & Arts

I have reverted the removed edits pertaining to the Greater Vancouver Alliance for Culture & Arts that were recently added in by another user. I feel that it is important to include this information in the Vancouver article or some other relevant Vancouver article. Vancouver is one of the few cities in the world (with Toronto, New York, London) that have a day-of half-price ticket oulet. Also, I feel that the the Alliance and Tourism Vancouver play a vital role in/for Vancouver. Perhaps their mention is worthy of their own article so that they are not presented in full within the Vancouver article.

Thoughts? Luke 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the only edit by Virtual mom (talk · contribs) so far, and the high number of external links in the edit, and the placement of a link at the top of the External Links section (before even the official city page link), is what triggered my "spam" red flag. I, personally, have never heard of these organisations. Some digging does indicate that they have connections to Tourism Vancouver and they are possibly government-supported initiatives. However, since Wikipedia is not for promotion, I think these don't deserve the prominence of having their own devoted section of the article. At best they deserve an in-line mention in the Arts and culture section. Certainly the link doesn't belong at the top of the list, and I've moved that at least. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Very true that Wikipedia is not for promotion and I totally agree. I too agree that they are taking up more than they did/do deserve in the article. I just feel that they are quite important in Vancouver and an in-line mention would be ok. Cause right now, it is reading more of a promotion rather than an encyclopedic article. Luke 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that it is spam, and even if it is isn't, it certainly isn't notable enough to be included in the main Vancouver article! Canuck89 04:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Education

I think Kwantlen, Capilano, etc. should stay because they serve Vancouverites. Many Vancouver residents attend them, as well as UBC and the Burnaby campuses of SFU and BCIT. Usgnus 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that they should be removed. They are not really notable enough to be included in the main Vancouver article. Personally, I like the paragraph in its current state. Canuck89 04:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they shouldn't be included. This is an article on Vancouver and these facilities are located in North Vancouver and Surrey/Langley, respectively. There are other colleges and universities in the GVRD and FVRD that would have equal claim if we include Capilano and Kwantlan, e.g. Douglas College, Trinity Western University and University College of the Fraser Valley. We have been working at shortening the article, not expanding it. Sunray 17:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither the main campus of UBC nor SFU are in the city proper - most people who read this do not care where the city limits are - they want to know about the greater metro area --JimWae 06:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was leaning towards stay, for reasons similar to Usgnus and JimWae. I also had some issues with the language of the section, as it inferred that the listed post-secondary institutions were all located within the city. This isn't the case, of course, nor are they the only institutions available to Vancouverites. The other consideration, though, is the concern over the length of the whole article - which would seem to rule out listing every campus in the region. I've taken a stab at rewriting "Education" to give a sense of what is available to residents of Vancouver, the city, as members of Vancouver, the region. (It might be worth considering a mention of the Vancouver Film School, since it does have an international reputation. This could be as simple as "Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design provides post-secondary degrees in the fine arts, while the Vancouver Film School provides training in film and television production." However, the article at present is little more than an advert for the school, so we might want to hold off for a bit...) --Ckatz 08:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Ckatz has done a good a job with the section. I like it the way it is now. The reason why UBC and SFU should be included even thought they are not part of Vancouver "proper" is because they are actually significant, and would be recognized by readers from outside British Columbia and even Canada. Canuck89 15:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would include Trinity Western (Langley) and not Kwantlen (Langley/Surrey) and UCFV (Abbotsford). Sunray 23:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

TWU is a university, and the others are community colleges. --Ckatz 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not community colleges. Kwantlen and UCFV are both degree granting institutions.[6][7] The point being that we get into endless hair splitting unless we have a clear groundrule as to what gets included. TWU is in Langley, not Vancouver. I can see no justification for including it. Sunray 06:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The "counterculture" section is just annoying

Quote: With the high rain and temperate weather that Vancouver experiences it has become a haven for marijuana growers. Vancouver in the past twenty years has become a mecca for pot smokers around the world. Change has been driven by many individuals including Marc Emery, a pot activist he has opened several pot smoking friendly shops in Vancouver and recently the city was recognized as the best pot spot in the world to smoke pot, beating out other cities including the famed Amsterdam.

Well, I'm been a pot smoker for thirty years and some and even I'm not that fuzzy-headed. The "high rain and temperate weather" had nothing to do with why pot growing took hold here. The reason for that was manifold: cheap hydro rates; large, spacious houses with good basements; overheated rents and mortgages that encouraged people to look for premium incomes in order to survive financially, the entrenched presence of the city's gang element, the then-porous border etc. The relatively common practice in recent decades of homebuyers paying cash (not cheque) also made it easier to obtain property to do the business in, and it's unknown how much of the construction boom in BC has been financed by pot money, but as with retail and the service sectors there's little doubt that SOMEONE has had the money to buy all those condos and monster houses.... But mostly the boom in pot growing in BC had a LOT to do with Reagan-era persecutions of Oregon and northern California pot growers, who sent their varietals and clones northwards for protection from the Agent Orange squads; and they had all the marketing connections that turned BC's mom and pop producers into "major commerce".

And a section on the counterculture should have something to do with other countercultural agendas than pot; avant garde movements "then and now", the Bicycle People and what-not. When I saw "counter culture" (sic) I thought the section was going to have something to do with Kits and Gastown in the late '60s, and the Dadaists and punk movements and so on; the section needs a rewrite, and another title.Skookum1 19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, shouldn't the marijuana-as-industry subject be under "Crime"? Protests and attitudes aside, it is an illegal industry, and thus it should be in the appropriate section. There already is a comment about local attitudes towards drugs under "Lifestyles". This material doesn't need to be under "Arts and Culture"; as Skookum1's comments illustrated, there is far more to the Vancouver scene than just drug politics. Ckatz 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorta I guess; except that there's so much more to the drug culture (and I'm not speaking just about pot) than its illegality; what I mean by that is that simply by calling it "Crime" it becomes POV by default, and there's ideological/cultural baggage that simply applying the police/government perspective to doesn't serve well; and also the history of the underworld in this town is maybe something that belongs more in the history article/section, e.g. the US-Prohibition-era smuggling of booze that fed the Vancouver economy in the '20s. I don't think "pot" should be its own section, or the title of a section; more like "drug culture" which we can honestly say is part of the history of the city; it was the main opium port for North America until the later 20th Century, for instance, and it's always been a pirate/smuggling entrepotSkookum1 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's this much interest and you think you can keep things neutral and verifiable, why not start a Drug culture in Vancouver article? History, businesses, enforcement, etc. This would allow expansion as desired, without overwhelming or annoying those only interested in the main article. --Ds13 17:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Crime

Does anyone else find the section on crime misleading? Our violent crime rate is "moderate"? I know that crime happens but this statement seems to exaggerate the situation. Hu Gadarn 22:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question is: "Vancouver's overall violent-crime rate is moderate but its property-crime rate ... is particularly high; ranking among the highest rates of property crime for major cities in all of North America.[8]" That the violent-crime rate is moderate is a bit of a weasel phrase so I've tagged it for a cite. The latter part of that sentence dealing with property crime has such a cite. --Ds13 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ohmigod; POV opinion about "social fabric"

For me, Vancouveritis is a POV and this article stinks of it, but there's not much you can do about it because so many people have bought into the feel-good, self-stroking Vancouverite "religion" that there'll always be somebody to make the claim that it's a fun city (when it ain't), that it has beautiful weather (when it decides to) and that people are friendly (but only if you're from somewhere else and/or you're useful to them).

Vancouver is considered to be a relaxed city, particularly by North American standards. There is a lively cultural scene, many diversions,...

I'm sorry, I must be living in a different city. Relaxed? Well, it all depends on what you mean by "relaxed", same as that "laid-back" term I hear Easterners inflict on us so much without thinking that someone who doesn't return your phone call or email isn't exactly laid-back so much as disrespectful and kinda rude. Laid back has nothing to do with it; laid back is someone easy to deal with, easy to get along with; Vancouverites typically AREN'T. On the attack, passive-aggressive when not actually overtly sociopathic/critical/contrary, hostile to extroverted behaviour, insistent on morgue-like peace-and-quiet around their million-dollar homes (or half-million-dollar condos, including those on the edge of the club district), boastful and braggartly about how this is "the best place in the world" and "why would you ever want to live anywhere else" and all that hogwash. Nauseating after the millionth time, in the fortieth year, y'know, especially when you hear it used to excuse some horrendous local cultural/social failing/bad habit (like, y'know, never looking someone in the eye and treating anyone who's friendly as if they should either be arrested or in the lunatic asylum).

So, a "relaxed" city is more like "sedate and kinda dull" and "not likely to let its hair down", as well as "heavily regulated to prevent large public gatherings" and the general repressive atmosphere caused by the way the city and province license drinking establishments (don't even get me started on the live music bylaws). This city could be called "relaxed" if people were comfortable talking with strangers, if they didn't have to worry about the freak turning right from the left-hand turn lane, if the cost of housing weren't over 60% of the average income and so on.

As for "lively cultural scene" - ack. Did someone pull that from a government tourism brochure?Skookum1 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver Wave - is the Rugby Union a professional team?

I've pulled the recently added references to the Vancouver Wave and the Vancouver Island Crimson Tide from the "Professional sports teams" section pending debate over what should be included here. My apologies if I've overlooked something, but I can't find any references on the Rugby Canada Super League, BC Rugby Union, or Rugby Canada sites that indicates this is a professional sport. (Even if it is, the VI team shouldn't be in the Vancouver article anyways.) --Ckatz 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deleted text:

|- | [[Vancouver Wave]] | [[Rugby Union]] | [[Canadian Super League]] | [[Brockton Oval; Burnaby Lake]] | [[Image:vancouverwave.gif|45px|Vancouver Wave Logo]] |- | [[Vancouver Island Crimson Tide]] | [[Rugby Union]] | [[Canadian Super League]] | [[Vancouver Island]] | [[Image:vi_crimsontide.gif|45px|Vancouver Island Crimson Tide Logo]]

It's back... and removed once again. Anyone know about this league, and its status (pro or not)? --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Rugby Canada Super League is a private, not-for-profit corporation that is committed to the development of players & raising the caliber of competition in Canada. The thirteen (13) team elite rugby league with teams from Victoria to Newfoundland play in two conferences the Eastern and Western Conference, with the Conference Champions playing each other to determine the RCSL Championship. The RCSL is a part of the Rugby Canada High Performance program created to train players for Canada's National Rugby Team."

"The 2006 RCSL season will span three months and 38 games from Vancouver Island to St. John's Newfoundland. The National Championship will see the Western Champion visiting the Eastern Champion on August 5th. Play begins in the Eastern Division on Saturday June 3rd with the defending National Champion Newfoundland Rock visiting the New Brunswick Black Spruce and the Ottawa Harlequins visiting the Niagara Thunder. Western Division action commences Friday evening June 9th, with the Manitoba Buffalo visiting the Edmonton Gold." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.221.155 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 8 August 2006.

It is furthermore noteworthy that the Vancouver Ravens NLL team was listed as a former professional sports team, though the NLL is considered to be of the same professional level as the Rugby Canada Super League. Both leagues function as the top-tier competition in their respective sports and serve to create a talent pool for international contests. Neither involve athletes playing solely their respective sport for their income, though both are widely considered professional leagues. The International Rugby Board (IRB) even sanctions both the Rugby Canada Super League and the North American 4 Series competition as the top-tier domestic competetions for Canada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.221.155 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 August 2006.

According to the WP article Rugby Canada Super League, it is a semi-professional league. --Usgnus 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good, some information. (Although I'm not sure we're supposed to use Wikipedia as a source for verifying information for articles.) Anyways, what's the feeling then - include or not? --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it can go back in, but I don't feel strongly either way. --Usgnus 03:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Good article" status?

I don't think so, but I haven't applied to delist or review it yet; we need to review it ourselves first, and tidy it up; it's not tidy, and it's tangential like crazy, as the above discussion gets into. Needs a lot more work before it's a "Good Article", never mind a featured one; and it should NOT be included in the CD version in its present state IMO.Skookum1 15:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a lot more work. -- Usgnus 15:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because not particulary well written; not broad enough in coverage; not very stable

Hilarious Bumpf

Vancouveritis in its most innocent phase - a sure sign of contamination of the gee-whiz mentality that winds up bitterizing after a while:

Although it may not be the largest city in Canada, it is often thought of as the best. Vancouver is the best for living, partying and a great place for vacations.

Partying? Partying? Gimme a break. The "cool" crowd in Vancouver think what they know a party is. This city has no night life worth the name, no live music scene on a par even with Portland's or Spokane's, no vibrancy on the street or in the clubs, and it's dull, dull, dull despite the amazing scenery. Well, when you can see the scenery, and believe me after 40 years it's old hat. A great place for vacations? What is this, a tourism brochure? "best for living" is an echo of the popular slogan, coopted by the BC govt by paying big bucks to one of the communications-consultant types who gets paid lots of money for doing so: "The Best Place On Earth To Live". Almost as noxious as "Super, Natural British Columbia" (which one of Miniwac's buddies got the adscam payment for, while "The Best Place On Earth" - they did actually pay for the slogan - was one of Campbell's pal-companies.

Anyway, it's just amazing the sop that people put up here as though they thought it was real and/or important. I gotta repeat - partying? PARTYING??? Ever been to London? New Orleans? New York? Paris? Ibiza? Ios?? RIO??????? Vancouver doesn't know how to party, is afraid to party, and rolls up the sidewalks when other cities are just getting started; but it sure does know how to blow smoke up its own ass, don't it?Skookum1 06:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, it was simple vandalism. :-) -- Usgnus 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Such POV /re what a good party is or isn't does not belong in any city's encyclopedia entry. Not even New Orleans' or Ibiza's. And to each their own, anyways... Each generation brings a new type of partying to the table and sometimes it's not even possible for people in, say, their 40s to know how/why/what/where the good parties are happening, even in their own city. --Ds13 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Which serves to prove that nothing is happening for people in their '40s. In fact, I just had a talk with a friend who's the equipment guy for a certain pro sports team, and upon this topic he said the team had a new guy (from Latin America) who's been in Montreal for 4 years, and he's been here for a year and still doesn't know where or how to meet people/women, because the bars here are all so target-marketed you "have to find the one you belong in". And guess what - if you don't belong to a recognized clique-cum-brandname crowd (whatever clique and whatever brandnames are involved) there's just nowhere to go, and certainly nowhere to socialize or publicly relax like there is in a civilized city. And the guy in question isn't even in his 40s - he's 33, and drop-dead handsome and built like you'd want to be built. But he's bored stiff here, and finds the club scene closed and uptight; it's not like the guy doesn't know how to socialize either - but in the Vancouver logic if things he's going to have to "fit in", and even if he tries, 9 times out of ten he'll get shut out. This is not a blog, but it's so true about this city, such a common topic of conversation - unless you're all hyped and pysched about Vancouver-the-drug and dismiss criticism by condemning the person unhappy with the place as though there's something wrong with them. Hell, no wonder there's such a big mental health problem here (BTW, do you think the stat that Vancouver has one of - if not the highest, which it may - epidemics of chronic depression in North America? Isolation, loneliness, exclusion, denial, judgementalness; this city is rife with it; and also with people who gladhand the place like it was paradise. No, paradise here was a long time ago, long paved under by the parking-lot mentality that has taken over the place since the '80s.Skookum1 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  you seem to wig out a bit about this.

List of Beaches

Um, the following is not quite right, and maybe is more a listing of Parks Board concession stand names than actual beaches:

English Bay (First Beach), Jericho, Kitsilano Beach, Locarno, Second Beach (Stanley Park), Spanish Bank East, Spanish Bank Extension, Spanish Bank West, Sunset, and Third Beach (Stanley Park).

Might as well put them in sequence:

Spanish Banks, Locarno Beach, Jericho Beach, Kitsilano Beach, Sunset Beach, English Bay Beach, Second Beach, Third Beach.

English Bay Beach is/was of course "First Beach" but I don't think that name has been current since, oh, 1890 or so. Speaking of which the original pre-real estate development name of Kitsilano Beach was Greer's Beach. There's no need to breakdown Spanish Banks into East and West, and Locarno and Jericho should have beach names (otherwise they're neighbourhood names). And while I realize the UEL isn't part of the City of Vancouver, I'd expect what else is on it to be included in Vancouver-page listings (for lack ofanywhere else), so Wreck Beach, Tower Beach and Acadia Beach should head the list - if the UEL is in the purview of the Vancouver page, that is.Skookum1 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

This page should be moved to Vancouver, British Columbia as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States_and_Canada. Not only are there other cities with the name Vancouver, but there is also plenty of precident for including the state/province name. Even uniquly named cities follow this convention (Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California, Seattle, Washington, Dallas, Texas, Atlanta, Georgia, Calgary, Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Des Moines, Iowa, even Honolulu, Hawaii for Pete's sake). Even if there were only one Vancouver in the whole world, the article should still use the proper name. Cacophony 06:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If/when that is done, I suggest Vancouver should redirect to Vancouver, British Columbia with a standard "Vancouver" redirects here. For other uses, see Vancouver (disambiguation). notice at the top. --Ds13 07:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Ds13's suggestion. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the idea of redirecting Vancouver to Vancouver, British Columbia, along with a disambiguation note. Given the relative importance of the explorer, however, we might want to consider a more involved tag at the top. Here are two possibilities:

1) {{otheruses4}}

This page is about the city of Vancouver, British Columbia. For the British explorer, see George Vancouver.

2) {{Twootheruses}}

This page is about the city of Vancouver, British Columbia. For the British explorer, see George Vancouver. For other uses, see Vancouver (disambiguation).

--Ckatz 08:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Most readers don't know and don't care that Vancouver is in a province named British Columbia. Each country follows its own standards for city naming, Why should we follow the U.S. standard that goes against the rest of the world? Toronto, Montreal, Copenhagen, Oslo, Vienna, Budapest, Istanbul, Mumbai, Paris, London, Accra, Tunis, Madrid, Rome, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Johannesburg, Taipei, Hong Kong, Sydney, Seoul, Tokyo, the list goes on, all follow the "disambiguation as needed" rule. -- Usgnus 20:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Read the talk page for Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_States_and_Canada. There was never any consensus reached about the "and Canada" part of the naming convention. -- Usgnus 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (minor edits -- Usgnus 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Note. I am going to open discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board to try to get a city naming convention for Canada. -- Usgnus 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver

This metro area ought to be amalgamated into city. It proved realy effective in Ottawa (formerly Ottawa, Kanata, Orleans, Barhaven, Nepean, Goulbourn..etc), and in Gatineau (formlerly Hull, Gatineau, Aylmer...etc). •USER•ADAM THE ATOM•TALK• 19:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)\

Amalgamating the Lower Mainland into one big megacity and having the WHOLE place run from Kerrisdale and Shaughnessy instead of just part of it? Don't think it would sell, and people out here, well, we're just not like you Ontarians, and probably wouldn't want to be herded together that way. Matter of fact, I've been through two municipal amalgamation referenda and they're not pretty (they did pass, but it was town+muni (Mission; Chilliwack did the same IIRC) or muni+muni+village (Abbotsford), not city+city+city+city+city(n).Skookum1 07:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mutation of Other Names section

I'm not going to revert the mass deletion of this section by IP address whomever just now; I just had to chuckle when I saw the recent texts that have emerged in the various edits since last I looked at this list (changes I'd make if it was still inplace are in bold; my comments in italics):Skookum1 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

- Vancouver is referred to by a number of appellations. Recently (since the late 90s) the name has sometimes been shortened to "Vancity", or "the 'Couve" (which rhymes with "move").

Only by nauseating hipsters from Toronto, and those grown up with texting instead of talking as their main means of communication. These names are the last and least relevant of all the nicknames, but the "cool" ethic inspired a "cool" person to put them at the top of the list. Bore-ing.Skookum1 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) PS modern hipster-talk sounds like Valley Girls; less interesting, in fact.Skookum1 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• The traditional nickname for Vancouver is "the Terminal City" which dates back to the earliest days when the city was the terminus for the inter-colonial railroad. Though rarely called that in colloquial speech, it is a name which recurs time and again in Vancouver's history, having been applied to one of the city's premier gentlemen's clubs, movies, magazines, radio shows, restaurants and probably many other little-known things in its history.

Way better known than "the Couve", though

- * People from other parts of Canada sometimes refer to Vancouver as "Lotus Land" (a reference to the Lotophagi of Greek legend) because of the attractive and easygoing lifestyle in the city.

Actually, no, the Lotus thing refers to escapist addictions, the unreal state of life on the West Coast, "attractive and easygoing lifestyle" is not the association that Lotus Land was coined with, nor used with; it refers to the madcap politics of the later Socred era, the weird political and economic beliefs on all ends of the political spectrum, the fantasy lifestyle. This was in here with this meaning a few weeks ago; but someone decided that it meant "attractive and easyging". And those two words are not words that I associate with what this city has become; even less so with the particular meaning of "Lotus Land"; a term which in fact could probably use its own article to explain/discuss the context fully. This definition, like others here, sounds like it's an interpretation by an enthusiastic newcomer - what the phrase means to them, not what it actually means.Skookum1 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

- * It is called "Hollywood North" by the film industry and its boosters, a nickname it shares with Toronto.

A nickname that was coopted by Toronto to describe itself. The film industry aka Hollywood was where the term was coined and it was coined to describe Vancouver and nowhere else. Gee-whiz blurb about celebrities hanging out deleted as irrelevant

- * It is also often called "Vansterdam" by drug tourists and local pot-smokers for its laissez-faire attitude to marijuana use.

Yeah, but yawn

- * The city is also sometimes known as "Hongcouver" which comes from its large Chinese population (in particular a large influx of Hong Kong immigrants as a result of the 1997 Hong Kong reversion to Chinese sovereignty).

Bowdlerized once again; this oversimplification does not give the proper context, and also this term was a flash in the pan and only a short-lived media phenomenon in the first place. Just because of this ongoing rewrite of history about this word I think this whole section should be blone off the page; except for the sobriquet Terminal City, which is historic (dating to 1885 as it does!).Skookum1 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

- * The city is commonly refered to as "Van City", or just simply "VC", by the Canadian Hip-Hop Community.

Yeah, and who the f**k cares what the Hip-Hop Community call it? What do the Rock and Roll Community call it? The World Beat Community? The Polish Community? Van City is just hipster slang, like "the Couve". Go back to hipsterville; the rest of us are BORED WITH YOU.Skookum1 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)(nothing kills a city's life so much as when the hip decide that it's hip enough for them....)

- * "Raincouver" is also often used, which is a joke regarding the amount of rain Vancouver experiences, especially during the winter months.

A Torontoism coined by rained-out people who'd rather be skating on their ponds; Uncitable like my Rainburg and others; "also often used" is patently false; unless the person who put this in is a transplant from elsewhere in CAnada who only talks to other transplants from elsewhere in Canada. Skookum1 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the rants, fellow Wikians; just makin' notes for later editing, as I knew someone would revert it. Honestly, though, I'm serious; if the comments are as trivial - and as bowdlerlized - then let's just ditch the section; it's too transient in a temporal way; Terminal City is a historical sobriquet as noted, though admittedly now rare; and with Lotus Land and Hongcouver, the true contexts of those will always be replaced by a comic-book gloss of the truth, or more likely a half-truth; as stated Lotus Land should probably be an article, as it's purely BC context (it was I think first coined for Victoria - by Fotheringham - to describe the political-social whirl of the place (in which the press were equally soused combatants); and took on a new tone during the Fa-a-a-ant-astick! era. But that's what it's about; our "eccentricities" - as seen by the rest of Canada, the escapism (arch-idealism) in politics as much as recreation time, the la-la atmosphere (te term IMO is Dr. Foth's aping of La-La Land, which was in vogue at the time for LA, for many of the same reasons; Lotus Land also became associated here with navel gazing. NOT "being easygoing" or whatever. And in closing, apologies to hipsters everywhere. I was just funnin' ya.Skookum1 08:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This section has been bugging me for a while as well... I've tried a rewrite based on some of Skookum1's ideas above. --Ckatz

Professional minor-league baseball in the 1920s? No?

I see the Millionaires on there; but wasn't there a big-time baseball team in the interwar decades, minor league anyway? Can't remember waht they were called; woulda expected to see them here. Or not?Skookum1 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

About new pix

The view of Chinatown is actually of Skid Road, taken from Chinatown looking north; that's a Hastings bus mid-frame, and most of what's in the shot is part of DERA/Gastown. The foggy view of Stanley Park is Third Beach with Siwash Rock, and could maybe be used to help illustrate Siwash Rock (in addition to a close-up). The panorama that opens the Skyline section is also used on the Coal Harbour page, which it doesn't illustrate well (an aerial might, if the right one could be found; or at best/least a map, maybe an old one).Skookum1 12:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Architecture - Lost and Demolished Buildings

The Birks Building, for one, but the list is long of interesting subjects/topics which do and should be part of any civic history pages anyway: the Orillia, the Grosvenor and Devonshire and Alcazar and Ritz, names that were part of the identity of Vancouver; even the Cave's interior design - something more than a movie set version of a cave - is a bit of architectural history. Pictures exist of all these and more; the old gas tanks next to the old Georgia Viaduct, for example, or the architecture of the A-B Pier in Coal Harbour. I'd say the Rowing Club, if it's not already listed, should be, not as a architectural marvel, but as an icon of the early city (originally moored over about where Cordova and Hornby is today, but on the water at the foot of the bluff that used to be there. There's a couple of other things I had in mind when I started writing this; I'll come back when I think of them, later sometime.

Just suggesting that these bits of architectural legacy should be considered in the historical sense; there were also temporary buildings, including more modern ones such as the Expo Theatre but also some of the original efforts at big PNE buildings, which were Spanish-Italianite belltower-cupolas (four) surrounding a conservatory dome; evocative of the California connection that's more evident in Seattle it was unstable and had to be taken down, to be replaced by about where the Gardens and ShowMart is (or were or whatever; I haven't kept track of changes to the PNE grounds as I haven't been for years.

Another, probably already mentioned, was the second CPR station, at the foot of Granville rather than Seymour, and more like the Chateau Laurier (whereas the Hotel Vancouver is a knock off of the Hotel York design, as also with the new station resembling, at a prop scale, whatever the big station is in Toronto (Union?); and of course the loss of the old Main Street Market (iron/steel?, grillwork and glass), the Great Northern Station; there was no Eastern parallel to the 2nd Hotel Vancouver, which I think could only have happened on the Pacific coast, a mix of Californian and Italianate and a whiff of the Raj. Other than one of the older of Montreal's grand hotels maybe, but I couldn't say which one; and I don't know what the old Queen E looked like. But the 2nd Hotel Van's design has always struck me as very imperial - Pacific and Orient, and apparently there were traces of every bit of Empire throughout the place's decor, from African art to Chinese porcelain and Indian brass, and of course the famous goldplate and marble sinks throughout. None of the other lost hotels were as grand, but they were stories in themselves - the Ritz especially, and the Castle (where the new row of shops is south of the Vancouver block, underneath FS. The Grosvenor was more upclass, the Alcazar a bit discreet, and not quite seedy. They're all gone, and more; at some point I'm going to write a beer parlour article....

I suppose the old bridges are covered in the respected bridge articles (?); the Fraser Street might need a historical entry, but I'm also thinking of things like the old Lulu Island Railway bridge and terminal at the head of Granville Street (Drake or thereabouts, and then over a trestle above False Creek. And as a by the way; is New Westminster's architectural heritage covered in the same detail as VAncouver's has been (nothing modern, I know, but the historical buildings I think are worth a writeup; I'm just not familiar enough with them to do it). 'Sall for now; but just suggesting article ideas/direction for thought/inclusion. Skookum1 03:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove unofficial names section completely?

Every city has unofficial names. Vancouver is hardly unique. Having a section just invites anyone to throw in her or his pet name for the city. --Usgnus 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And their wrong definitions/histories of how such names - the better-known ones - came to be established. Hollywood North isn't really a nickname, nor is Hongcouver: they're epithets that got media circulation and get used now and then as "interesting" or in brandnames (HN does anyway); Gastown is only a district; when it meant the city the city was much smaller; Terminal City is a sobriquet, Big Smoke is an actual historical nickname, still in use for "us" in the Interior but long since coopted as part of Torontonian identity (or rather Toronto's excuse for an identity, since they didn't like being Hogtown); same with the co-option of Hollywood North, to help them and their mock Wall of Fame look like the real thing; here it was a reference to the workaday world of the filmbiz, nothing more (and not to the city as such). And the trendiness of "VanCity", "V.C." and "the Couve" seem to make it to the top of the list in grand sophomoric style. So yeah, plus all the dross that gets added in, and the bad definitions; I vote to ditch the whole section as a pain in the ass to keep tidy.Skookum1 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Official nicknames (if Vancouver has such) should naturally be listed in the article and easily cited. But excluding notable unofficial nicknames isn't the answer. So what's notable? Not specifically aimed at city nicknames, but one meta-essay here suggests if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency then it's notable. So if an unofficial nickname can be shown to be known outside a narrow interest group through cites from reliable sources, I think it can be reasonably included in a Wikipedia article. This was the basis for the past removal of some nicknames such as "Rainburg". --Ds13 19:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But what's to define a "narrow interest group"; this would disqualify Terminal City, definitely a historical sobriquet but now known only to the "narrow interest group" composed of pre-expansion Vancouverites? Big Smoke? - also archaic, other than its continuing use in the Interior. But both valid, historically real, and not trendy/chic. Rainburg and Raincouver I can do without every bit as much as Vancity, VC and the Couve; but historical nicknames/sobriquets, without or with a "narrow interest group", are entirely valid. If anything is, that is.Skookum1 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Terminal City" should be included if we can verify via reliable sources that, in its day, it was known beyond just a narrow interest group. Likewise, the "Vancity" nickname should be included if we can do likewise. Whether the name was used in the distant past or bleeding-edge present should be mentioned because it's useful and interesting, but it doesn't need to be an exclusion criteria. --Ds13 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if we keep a few well-known nicknames, we don't need a whole subsection for them. --Usgnus 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Other cities' articles have put the nickname(s) in the right side summary table. See: New York, Seattle, San Francisco. --Ds13 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Another reason to remove the section is that the article is too long. --Usgnus 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To world-class or not to world-class?

As if there was a polite answer to that....I noted someone got rid of this reviled adjectival phrase in the last edit, and no doubt it'll come up again and again. Funny part is I wiki-searched "world-class city" and it took me to "Global city". And guess who's not even discussed, despite pretensions of being "world-class" and thinking other people even notice (as the Global city article shows, they don't/haven't. In the long run, I want to start a petition to get the papers and politicians from using this phrase in every other paragraph they spew, especially when they're trying to justify something really noxious they want to shove down our throats, because we have to do it because we're now world-class and all that. Sigh. Anyway, just a note to keep it out of BC pages, Vancouver pages, and any repetition of the "Best Place On Earth" ad theme, paraphrased or otherwise, should be shot down for the pollyannaish sell job that it is.Skookum1 18:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Everytime I hear someone use this phrase I think they've got a self-esteem problem ("city-envy"). It was the same with a former resident well-known actor who complained on TV that it rained here too much! Gadzooks! String him up and start the fire! Would New York panic over such a comment? Would London? But we Vancouverites are oh so very fragile. Ban the no-class "world class"! Hu Gadarn 03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was David Duchovny, and it wasn't even that he complained about the rain; he simply said that his wife didn't like it here because she didn't like so much rain, and she preferred the sunshine in L.A. So they vilified him, basically running him out of town, simply because he relayed a message that they can't stand hearing. I'm born and raised here, but I'm speaking my mind totally without shame, and imagine sooner or later the hack media will pick up on it and trying and attack me, too; tbat is, if I make a name for myself, which probably means I'll have to do that somewhere else (if not simply on-line) because there's a glass ceiling for creative professionals and performers and writers and such here; you have to be a success somewhere else before people will kiss up to you; in the meantime they shit down their noses at you, as if they had a right to judge; which of course they don't, but they sure like to pretend that they know something you don't. Rambling on this because I just got out of a protracted and sangria-fueled conversation about this with two French-from-France and another artist-voyageur-intellectual (he's a prof, by the way) about all this; while the rest of the party froze us out, thereby fulfilling exactly what it was we were saying (about them). It was very refreshing to talk about people in front of them, the same way they so often do about other people here; a taste of their own medicine, except in our case it was castor oil, in their case it was pretentious saccharine and cotton-batten. Despite being from here I've broken my shell and refuse to be crammed back into it; the world-class and "best place on earth" and standard "why would you want to live anywhere else?" nostrum that people trot out as some kind of "why don't you just give up on your dreams and sell out like the rest of us?" incantation. Pondering doing a "Vancouveritis" or "Vancouverisms" page in my sandboxes; people's stories about "the Vancouver frosting", the big fat chill, the cold shoulder and the shunning look, the shadow of Clifford Olson and disappearing children that's in everyone's eyes when you talk to them; the fear that all the unknown is dangerous. But boy, isn't this a world-class town, huh? Yeah, a world-class psycho ward, with lots of rain, residential areas that might as well be cemeteries, and a night-life with more in common with Ft MacMurray than with Greenwich Village or Montmartre; or even Van Nuys Boulevard or Venice. World-class my ass....and I think the more of us speak up about this, the sooner we might stop hearing it; and as a policy, I suggest that certain key phrases be entirely avoided and replaced/removed when they appear; with "world-class" at the head of the class.Skookum1 09:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Umm ... thanks for sharing and the few comments about "world-class" Vancouver. Hu Gadarn 06:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, well, I can't blame it just on the sangria, but encountering the world-class attitude/cold shoulder during the BBQ probably helped set me off, too.Skookum1 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NoFunCouver/No Fun City

Postscript to previous section: speaking of which, there's no mention of NoFunCouver here (a word that's in a lot more current use than the noxious HongCouver; No Fun City is something people might look up; and it's common across classes and groups, and not age-specific like "VanCity", which apparently is now in vogue (to my ears it sounds tacky); the other day I heard someone refer to the whole agglomeration as "Metro" (capital-M), as if they were talking about Toronto. Re-branding the place is constantly going on, as each layer arrives and translates its own world-view to the place; but No Fun City is something you have to have lived here for a while to appreciate the sense of; same with NoFunCouver. Strikes me that might make a very POV sort of article, or a good bloodbath anyway; the pros and cons and the whys and the wherefores; should get all the Vancouver loyalists all heated up about denying it, and the rest of us weighing on why it's so true....I hope someone has done a piece on the band "No Fun"; if not I'll see what I can do (Vancouver's early and post-punk/new wave scene was barely listed on the music section/page previously; hard to credit NOT mentioning the Pointed Sticks (now listed) or the Young Canadians....ah well, Wiki is always growing; it's amazing what doesn't get put in, though; vs what does, e.g. Hongcouver, which none of us use and a lot of us resent (on both sides of the debate), vs NoFunCouver, which is in a lot more current use and has a lot more substance/reason behind it; it's more relevant but funnily enough it never showed up on the nicknames list....Skookum1 09:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources requested for population density in "Social fabric" section

These claims (30,000 people/sq.km and third highest in North America) should be properly cited, especially since the claim about density just jumped from 20,000 to 30,000 in the space of one edit. I've tried a quick search, but information seems somewhat sparse. Here are a few links if anyone wants to follow up on this: City of Vancouver CityFacts, "Living First" in Downtown Vancouver, Debate at the "Cascadia Scorecard", and Demographia. --Ckatz 08:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

East End vs West End

I just happened to look up the disambig pages for each of these terms after seeing someone's fix to the West End neighbourhood article or section; part of the reason is that there's a West End in New Westminster (basically everything SW of 12th St.) which is a historic name as well as a neighbourhood definition by the city and in community organization; but growing up in Vancouver we always had the term East End, which isn't synonymous with the East Side either. To me, the East End is the older part of the East Side - Commercial/Victoria, maybe up as far as Kingsway (at most) and as far as Nanaimo; this was, literally the East End of the city, just as the West End was the end in that direction; and it should be understood that the context here is the English/UK sense of an "end"; the outer part of somewhere, often taken/become over time to be a neighbourhood or street name; when London's West End was named/built up, it was a long ways out from The City; likewise Vancouver's West End, which emerged when the core of the city's social life was in the 100blks E and W of Hastings and Cordova Streets. So, similarly, in that temporal context, the East End was the newly-developing/settling area away from the downtown/city, on the hillside overlooking it from the east; namely the Commercial Drive area (then Park Drive), which was the first built-up area. Had me confused a couple of times in recent years because the usage has blurred and some younger friends, having said they were in the East End, meant they were "down on Hastings" i.e. the Downtown Eastside and not farther out towards Nanaimo or Commercial; similarly when someone says they're going to the East Side, that can mean the DERA zone but theoretically it means everything out to Boundary; whereas the East End doesn't, not in its old sense anyway. Because the East End isn't an official city neighbourhood, but definitely a historic entity/name, I'm wondering what to do with it mention-wise...suffice to point at Little Italy, so-called, and say that's it; but it's not just the Drive; it's the whole area between Grandview Hwy, Clark, Nanaimo and the harbour....Skookum1 07:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• You might want to add some of that material re the East Side/East Van/East End to the East Vancouver article. I think you summed it up nicely. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 20:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• • was thinking also of an early-period location map, showing the old city core and the East and West Ends; in the days when Mt Pleasant and Kits Point where suburbs....Skookum1 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Global's and other adlink removed

They may seem like information sites, but really they're information-gathering and hit-generating sites to sell ads with; having them here increased Global's hit-rate and so its site's profitability and "credibility"; there are other events, restaurant and more sites (e.g. www.georgiastraight.com) which are more deserving, and less of a cash-cow for their media masters; there's another one - www.morevancouver.com which I have my doubts about but which has a reasonable amoung of actual writing on it, instead of "click here and it'll make us more money" targets; most of its text is probably cribbed from other sources anyway. But in general a lot of these sites are just exploitive; and Global's is already so well-positioned in google searches - why replicate it here?Skookum1 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling the external links. The section is pretty unwieldy. --Usgnus 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If the IP address trace on www.canada.com leads back to their own servers, they should get a stiff note in one of their papers about using Wikipedia for advertising, and they should desist. I think confronting a lot of these commercial sites publicly about abusing Wikipedia might be a good thing...Skookum1 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BC Stubs

Pls see User talk:Agent 86#RE: another category of stub needed and User talk:Agent 86#Stubs Skookum1 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Monkey puzzle and other flora

I'd put the "Peruvian" in my original write-through of that, as I'd meant to find what else it's called in English - Peruvian pine? It's not on the Pehuen/monkey puzzle page and when I first created it that was a redlink; I'd meant to come back and put it in but forgot to do so; it turns up in the local print media now and then, although usually "we" just call it a monkey puzzle tree. Also, I've seen a number of not-very-healthy century plants kicking around and other subtropical exotics (I know what they are because my aunt in Englewood CA had one in her front yard and explained them to us). I'm not even sure the Douglas maple is native here - I gave away my old Trees of Canada to a Serbian immigrant friend who wanted to learn all the names of plants and trees here, so I can't check. Perhaps a good list of what are native plants here, and what are not, might be revealing. I'm scratching my head to think what other "bizarre" exotics I've noticed but maybe this section's already full enough (?).Skookum1 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI The Monkey Puzzle tree is a Chilean Pine (Araucaria araucana). The Pacific Rhododendron, (Rhododendron macrophyllum) is native to BC. As is the azalea. The Douglas Maple is a native species. As for bizarre exotic species there are people cultivating bananas in the Lower Mainland. Zedcaster 07:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One, two, Three!!! I see a Monkey Tree!!!!!!!!!

Y'know, that's almost valid local folklore; I remember it from kid-hood. I wonder if it's also known in Cali and the PacNW....?Skookum1 06:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Scottish flag vs UK flag on Edinburgh listing

Hmm. That's a good one. Thing is, Scotland actually IS a country, albeit a constituent one of the United Kingdom, unlike California or Melbourne's home state of Victoria, Oz. That one has me scratching my head, for sure, since my empathies are with respecting Scottish identity; and in fact one reason for the sister-city ties is Vancouver's VERY old ties to Edinburgh and Scotland; although apparnetly more to Glasgow than E-burgh, to be sure (apparently 'til WWI Vancouver's skyline was, like old Glasgow's, festooned with iron-spike railings on a lot of building tops; melted down for bullets, y'see, and lost forever; I'll dig up a pic of some examples). My sentiments are with the Scottish flag, even though I'm not a Scot; maybe just a rebel....Skookum1 00:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer the UK flag because most maps show that UK is a country while Scotland is almost a "state" of the UK (same thing for England). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I know; I understand the logic of it; but technically Scotland is a country - it's a United Kingdom after all, and the UK's not exactly a unitary state anymore either. It's the same logic as the Iroquois Nationals playing at the World Lacrosse Championships recently; technically sovereign....it was just sentiment, and I'm not even Scottish.Skookum1 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I usually test whether a "country" is one or not -- ask, "Does the 'country' in question have a president (or prime minister, or equivalent)?" If the answer is no, then I wouldn't count it as a country. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

By that standard, Scotland is a "country". Any devolved parliament or governing body is going to have some sort of Head of government. The First Minister of the Scottish Parliament is a "Prime Minister". Agent 86 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Q - So what about Tony Blair? He's a prime minister, is he not? (Forgive my ignorance, but I forgot if he's PM of England or the entire UK.) If he's PM of the UK, then I'd have to say the UK is the country here. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And also, does one usually get a UK passport or an English/Scottish/etc one? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it just happens that it is now illegal to display St. George's Cross, in flag or escutcheon, in England, unless part of an existing blazon or logo. In other words, displays of English nationalism are now officially banned, as complained to me by a friend from England who was working with me last fall; not sure if the same applies to St. Andrew's Cross (Scotland). Point is, the UK is now a specifically de-nationalized state, in the same way that Canada has been re-branded in the Age of Multiculturalism; the national symbols are now representive of the new myth of diversity, and are to be divested of their old "national" links (in our case, the maple leaf and such, in England's and Scotland's, their national flags). The passports are only another symptom of that; I wonder - does a UK passport still say "British subject" or is someone now a "citizen of the UK"?Skookum1 05:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Myth of diversity." Skookum take a look around. Or are you too high up there on your soap box telling us all how it is? Sunray 05:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am, as a matter of fact. Forced diversity - official multiculturalism - is not a success nor is everyone solidly behind it; and it has a rather unfortunate history in times past (the Ottoman Sultanate and Austria-Hungary were both officially multicultural, despite Canada's ongoing brag about it being the first). And diversity is a "myth" in the sense that it's become a public icon with a whole mythology built around it that's at odds with reality and experience; and also a kind of sanctimony of the very kind you have invoked in accusing me of being "too high up there on (my) soapbox". It's a sacred cow, and woe betide the Canadian who dares speak out against it (publicly). It's been my experience that many "immigrants" (a loosely used term) also have strong reservations, despite the cheerleading and budget-sucking from the "immigrant organizations" who feed on multicuturalism. But that it's come down to stupidities like banning the existence of an English ethnicity - my friend Dennis couldn't even put "English" on his census form, although everything else under the sun was listed - is a demonstration of the shallowness and questionable motives behind de-nationalization. Sure, money doesn't have a colour, and neither does citizenship; but community should be community, not a fractured array of competing and quite often hostile ethnicities, which is what Canada (and especially Vancouver) is becoming; you can claim I'm speaking to the dark side, but I'm only a messenger here; you can believe the official myth - and its heavily-budgeted and very loud, repetitive SOAPBOXING - if you want; don't expect everyone else to eat the same doo-doo.Skookum1 05:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Picking up on the Tony Blair statement, he is the PM of the UK (which includes Scotland). That wasn't the point. The point was that the criterion given was whether or not the "country" had a PM (or equivalent). The answer for Scotland is yes. The other factors you then listed are additional valid criteria, beyond the one originally given. Frankly, I agree with you that Scotland is not a "country" in the nation-state sense of the word, but has many country-like characteristics. However, I don't care which flag is used, I just thought it bore mentioning that Scotland does, in fact, have a PM, so that consideration could be given to a broader scope of factors. Agent 86 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Change to Demographics by IP user 204.244.175.6

This was taken out:

Most earlier immigrant groups are fully assimilated or intermarried with other groups, although a new generation of East Europeans form a distinct linguistic and social community.

with the following comemnt:

no reason eastern europeans should be singled out as distinct anymore than any other group)

I disagree, although the wording of the excerpted bit could use some work; maybe just "Europeans" could be used, but in modern-speak that's become a euphemism/synonym for white; maybe "recent European immigrants". Point is that there are "invisible minorities" in the city, which are not addressed by other discussions of "multiculturalism" here and are often snubbed in minority-politics discussion, such as Global's forum on increasing multicultural sensitivity in the local media held a few months ago; one woman stood up and asked why members of the new-European communities were not invited, and only "visible" minorities were; she was not answered, and given dirty looks by the representatives of the groups who were invited. You could almost smell the "all white people are the same" attitude from the other representatives, but the fact of the matter is that the many new-immigrant Poles, Russians, Yugoslavs, Romanians and others are cohesive communities in the same way that the various South Asian and Asian and African groups are; despite the presence of old-stock families from those same origins who are assimilated; the point is the city's multiethnic strata aren't just about visible minorities, which is the pretense of the remaining/original text, which I'd tried to augment/enhance. OK, could have had better wording. And thinking of this, I have to concede that the Italians are somewhat in the same category, although there's a lot of overlap and interchange between old-stock Italian Canadians and the new arrivals, so "Eastern European" isn't quite right. But the Germans, Dutch, French-from-France-or-Belgium, Scandinavians and even the Finns aren't so readily stand-apart as the new immigrant groups. I train every day with a bunch of Serbian kids; their English is perfect and they are culturally assimilated; but their primary identity/loyalties are Serbian, as are their parents. The Greeks are a distinct community; but not an "invisible minority" in quite the same way as even the Italians, IMO, and certainly not as much as the Eastern Europeans. In general, I think the obsession of the "religion/doctrine of multiculturalism" with visible minorities ONLY is conceited and hypocritical, and it's time this page addressed the diversity of the so-called "European" population (which includes me, and I was born here, and don't consider myself a "European" no matter what some other labelling agenda wants to brand me).Skookum1 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Social fabric revisited

Earlier today, A Flame! added the following text to the "Social fabric" section:

"Some experts believe that while the astronomical increases in house prices are legitimately backed by the price of land in this region, the corresponding increase in condo prices is likely attributed to a real estate bubble. Despite a strong resistence to remove land for developing from the ALR (Agricultural Land Reserve), the farming industry, near suburbs such as Richmond, is weakening as crop yeilds barely recover the cost of the land itself. It is said by many that the only profitable crop for such expensive farmland is marijuana."

I've placed {{fact}} tags on the first two sentences, and removed the third sentence (regarding marijuana and farmland). A Flame! added a link to the Richmond Review website as verification. The link, however, was only to the homepage, and I was unable to find anything on their site relating to this subject. (The closest reference was from an interview with a candidate for the Marijuana Party back in January.) There's also a page on the Victoria Times-Colonist site that reproduces text from the Richmond News, saying "it has been suggested the only crop that would make farming viable is marijuana." However, there is no attribution for the statement, no trace of it on the News' website, and no indication of whether it is a news article, an op-ed piece, or a letter. Has anyone else heard of this claim? A statement like this should probably have a good source to back it up before it goes back into the article. Any thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of citation in Economy section

I removed it because the citation is in the main article Economy of Vancouver and in the Port of Vancouver article itself. --Usgnus 18:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed undocumented sentence

I removed this sentence from the rankings section:

However, Montreal and Toronto both score extremely high as well,
and people have often said that the only reason both Montreal and 
Toronto come after Vancouver is because of their weather.

It reads heresay and POV. Frankly, I believe that it was written by someone with strong ties to Montreal or Toronto.

I would be happy to keep it in the main article if someone can find a reference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew Eisenberg (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 August 2006.

As with my comments on Talk:Climate of Vancouver, comparisons to Eastern Canada are irrelevant when discussing Vancouver; this is not a national pissing contest. Vancouver's cultural connections are historically and still today with Sydney, Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, Edinburgh et al. Judging Vancouver on how it compares to TO or Mtl is, speaking as someone born here and increasingly irritated with the national maple-sucking mythology, utterly boring.Skookum1 23:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) In other words, why not also compare London's livability rating, since the climate is less of a factor, if that's the only factor that balances out the rest. As for these livability indexes, they're subjective to start with and are used as promotional marketing tools more than anything else.Skookum1 23:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Galleries

The following was added to the Arts and culture section by 64.3.25.114: Could someone put in good art galleries of Vancouver? Especially artist-run spaces? --Usgnus 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

This is a multi page move. The discussion is at Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation)

Note to Usgnus re instant neighbourhoods

I know what you're saying about Yaletown, but as a residential neighbourhood, such as it was, it was wtihin a few blocks' walk of the Yale Hotel (hence the name, not because the residents were from Yale); everything below Homer, at least, is "instant", especially in the last ten years (there was a slow evolution of the Mainland-Hamilton area in the pre and post Expo years, admittedly); the use of Yaletown to also describe the Stadium-Library district has always struck me as odd, also. As for Coal Harbour, the old meaning of that as a neighbourhood (i.e. on land) was from the Bayshore to the Harbour Ferries docks; and maybe a bit back up from the Bayshore (foot of Nicola, maybe, instead of Cardero, but that referred only to the small marine areas in that area; the rest eastwards was CPR and the various commercial docks; which might be referred to as being on Coal Harbour, but I wouldn't have considered that area to be Coal Harbour if someone told me to, say, meet them down there; I automatically would have thought of the little marinas and drydocks and marine shops between Cardero and Denman, which of course aren't there anymore. But that whole new Coal Harbour area from Cardero to Burrard/Thurlow, c'mon, that's totally "instant"; the W. Hastings part of that was simply called West Hastings, or when that ran out, you had West Pender; businesses along Pender between Jervis or wherever it is Hastings runs out and the Cardero crowfoot intersection were on, simply, West Pender. And when that was the mansions of the rich, it was the original Blueblood Alley (as was what is now the whole banking district north of Melville and west of Burrard, in fact, before they capitalized on the value of their residential realty and moved farther west, or to Shaughnessy and Point Grey as those areas became more accessible/easier to commute from.Skookum1 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. In the context of the paragraph, however, I think I preserved the sentiment while making it more accurate. --Usgnus 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

unsourced statment

Although there might be some resource on the internet to back up this claim, I decided to Be Bold and move it here.

In the past, Vancouver's weather was generally cooler, and in winter snow was far more common, with snowfalls averaging between 3-6 cm on average, with the occasional larger dumps. Overall, the average temperature has increased approximately 4-6 °C over the past 15 years.-- Selmo (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination with invitation to renominate

I really would have liked to award the GA to this article. It's very close to GA quality and could move up to FA in a few months. Specific things that hold it back are as follows:

• Uneven citations - several sections such as History have no line citations at all.
• Excessive redlinks - please create stub articles for most of the redlinks on this page.
• Choppy paragraphs - "Economy" and "Transportation" read like outlines (and are also unsourced).

Please keep working and resubmit. Durova 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons free zone

It does not make sense to say something about the U.S. military in that sentence. It is out of context. Other countries can have nuclear weapons too. --Usgnus 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense. Why single out the U.S. military? What about all the other foreign military ships that visit? --Usgnus 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of history section

The history section needs a complete rewrite. After searching the internet for about 15 minutes, I could not find any reliable sources that back up any of the claims. When I have some free time, I'll look at some books from the library, and will begin rewriting the section. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The best thing I found so far is The Greater Vancouver Book: An Urban Encyclopedia (Unknown Binding) The Greater Vancouver Book: An Urban Encyclopedia (Unknown Binding). The book is also available for [http: //www.discovervancouver.com/GVB/index.asp online reading]. I do have Horizons: Canada Moves West book, which is the primary source of the provincial education system's Socials Studies 10 source. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Selmo, I agree it could use some work. I own a fairly significant collection of history books on Vancouver, and although I usually skim the early history sections (pre-20th century), nothing here sounds new to me. Chuck Davis' "history of Metropolitan Vancouver is a decent online source, and by now is probably more extensive than his Greater Vancouver Book. Anyways, I can do some fact-checking when I have time, and maybe we can stick in some citations for the history section. The "History of Vancouver" article definately needs work. Good start, but only covers the first bit. I've been planning to do up to 1940 or so, maybe starting with the interwar years. Also, the citation section that is there needs to be cleaned up so it's clearly bulleted. There's my 2 cents. Let me know if there's something specific you want a source for.Bobanny 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The standard chronicles with facts and dates and such, mixed in amid much else, are the Akrigg's BC Chronicle (2 vol) and, for Vancouver, like him or not, Maj. J.S. "Skit" Matthews' 7-volume Early Vancouver, 1st two vols in the library or at some antiquarian booksellers (expensive - I sold my pair for $125; there were only ever 200 or 500 or something before the city shut Matthews' budget down - which is why only two volumes got published) and the original, all 7 vols, is in the City Archives; it's part narrative (the opening is embarrassing, but that's another story) but the bulk of it is documentary, oral dictations/accounts taken from pioneers, native sources, visitors and others; not well organized but a fascinating read. Early, early stuff from the marine exploration/marine fur trade era is best found in Derek Pethick's books (both The Nootka Connection and First Voyages to the Northwest Coast - or something like that; if not exactly that; I don't have it anymore) some of James Delgado's too (naval/marine historian recently retired from the Vancouver Maritime Museum. More recent archaoeological data, by the way, puts 9000BP and more for villages in the Lower Mainland (lower Stave River and at Xa:ytem east of Mission); underwater archaeology is turning out even older. I'll try and do a re-do on the early stuff like Narvaez and so on (think I've got one of Pethick's books on-hand, too; my Akriggs are out on loan to someone). Derek (? - Peter?) McDonald's Vancouver - a Visual History is pretty accurate and also has lots of good detail, if not the meat and guts of the politics and economy. None of this is on-line, though.....www.squamishnation.org has some useful detail and whatever the Musqueam and Tsleil-wau-tuth sites there are probably do too.Skookum1 06:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Then there's the "old white men" historians - Begg, Bancroft, Scholefield, Howay and so on; Margaret Ormsby is out of that tradition but more modern. Dense stuff, given the pre-Great War writing style and also intense detail; period bio/who's-whos are also useful; not sure what there is for Vancouver but in the SFU Library I came across Lives of the Premiers, which I really wish I had time to read cover to cover; the early Premiers were nearly all cads, as you know (my fave, Joseph Martin); although this is mainstream (but detailed) biography, independtly written (not official bios; can't remember the editor); the lurid stuff is there just not wallowed in; on the other hand much of the lurid stuff - that's in J. Morton's In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: the Chinese in British Columbia, which is more about the politicians and politics than from the Chinese perspective; detailed account, lots of Vancover material, opened my eyes on the whacky political system in the old days and (like Martin's viceregal coup and three-seat government) and the level of shenanigans that went down in the days before formal political parties (and you think our politics is nuts NOW!!). Think there's quite a bit of mayoral political history in that book, too. A popular hiostyr worth reading is Gassy Jack's Story by Olga Ruskin and someone else, not much more than a booklet/pamphlet but well-written if not well-cited, which includes the theory-of-the-day that the CPR deliberately tried to burn Gastown out...I think it's that book, anyway, don't have a copy. Skookum1 06:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Of the current general BC histories in bookstores Bowering is unreliable and too folksy and abbvreviated to be all that useful; Barman I'll save my comments for another time/space as, if more academic in style; I will say here that I find her speculative in nature rather than documentary, and indulges in rationalizations and judgements when she should instead be trying to recount the whole story (not just her preferred perspective on it - but that's the mainstream in current historiography IMO). I've seen nothing that's sufficient for more recent history, by the way (having lived through a lot of it and amazed at the glossing-over that goes on - puts the archival sources like newspapers and such in a different light when you realize that the newspapers create truth rather than report it...and what an editor is ranting about isn't representative of what people are saying; it's what he wants to get them talking about.Skookum1 06:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting/photos

Does anyone know how to get rid of all that white space? Some white space is fine, but now it looks like a big glacier drifted onto the article. Also, I agree that more variety in the photos would be good. The ones there are good pics, but the only human is our fearless leader, smilin' sam. In my opinion, there should ideally be a collection of photos, that if taken together, would convey the essence of Vancouver, or maybe more realistically be varied enough to reflect a diversity and various dimensions of the city. This isn't meant as a criticism of what's there now, just thoughts on improving the article's appearance. I'll try and remember to take my camera with me next time I go out and about.Bobanny 17:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty amazing photo that isn't being used by Chinatown (Vancouver) anymore (quite reasonably, since it doesn't really show Chinatown). Personally, I think it would be a shame not to use it in the Vancouver article. Any objections? -- TheMightyQuill 07:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good photo also. Not for representing Chinatown (it's not so good at that), but for representing a "mountains framed by building corridors" view that is common in Vancouver. --Ds13 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Orcasman 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)==see also== I removed the see also items that are linked throughout the article. As for the rest of this list, it seems to be completely random and a bizarre combination of things BC bud, cadets, historic trolleys... To me, the WiKi travel listing makes sense, the rest are reduntant or random.Bobanny 09:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have numerous fotos of "The Dragon Boat Festival, Indy Vancouver, Q.E. Park, Science World, Street Performers, Translink Performers and many others. Would you be intrested in looking over some of these for the article? Orcasman 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Upload them to Wiki Commons if you want others to check them out.Bobanny 03:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

City Hall photo

To the person who restored the City Hall photo: it wasn't removed, just moved to the architecture section. cheersBobanny 02:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold

Not to be preachy, but I just want to encourage people to be bold on this article. If something doesn't seem right in the content, you have the power to remove it. Just try and be clear on your reason why, and don't be offended if others disagree with your decision. Whatever gets changed or taken out can always be put back in, reworded and put back in, or given a citation and put back in. Personally I think this is a better way to go in many cases than sticking 'citation needed' all over the place, because people are going to see this article and think that its an unreliable source of information and look elsewhere (though there is a time to use tags). I did some googling and found references pretty easily for the skyline bit, but didn't find anything to confirm that VGH is indeed the 23rd tallest hospital in the universe. I just deleted it for that reason, but also because it's kind of a boring factoid. But if someone disagrees and has a citation, stick it back in, by all means. As for photos, I think 'be bold' should apply here as well, though I think people might be more subjective and opionated when it comes to photography. Someone mentioned that there's too much sky and water in the photos generally, and I agree, so maybe remove one of those if adding more. People picture were also requested; I stuck in some happy shoppers, but more would be welcome in my opinion. So if you think you have some good pictures Orcasman, stick some in. Same with that mountain view. There's also a bunch of other Vancouver-related articles that can use good or better photos: skytrain stations, neighbourhoods, etc., so don't feel they all have to go into the main article. You can look on the photos page to see if it's used anywhere else as well (the snowcapped mountain viewis still on the general Chinatown page, and I also stuck it on the North Shore Mountains article, and the Stadium-Chinatown skytrainarticle). Too many photos would be a bad thing, but it seems appropriate for Van since scenery is probably our biggest claim to fame. Use your judgment about what should go where. I noticed the Science World article has a gorgeous photo, but it's from another website, so could be replaced as per Wiki conventions.Bobanny 21:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Crime

I made some changes to the crime section and thought I should explain why. First, turns out Saskatoon, Regina, and Abbotsford have higher crime rates than Vancouver. Stats Can doesn't count those as major cities because they are under 500k (pop). What was there before was not technically incorrect, but it was misleading because there are 3 cities with higher rates than Van. I also added that crime rates generally are dropping, making it sound less alarming than it did. I also removed the bit about drug addicts in the DTES being a reason why property crime rates are so high; I think that's more of a stereotype than anything meaningful. According to this, Strathcona is not exceptional. The worst crime neighbourhood is the Downtown Business District, which I think it's fair to say that it can be attributed to all those businesses there.Bobanny 08:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Fail

2. Factually accurate? Fail

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? OK

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

• The current mayor is Sam Sullivan. is unnecessary in the lead section and if kept, the word current should be changed.
• Here currently only four are left., currently should be changed too.
• At least give a citation for such a fact as Vancouver is internationally renowned for its beautiful scenery.
• This should be cited too, Vancouver is considered to be a relaxed city, particularly by North American standards.
• Social fabric doesn't let the reader know what to expect in the section also, that section tends to have non-notable trivial information that isn't necessary except in travel guides (what WP tries not to be).
• thus visitors are advised to conceal all items left in their car, and to use auto-theft protection devices. is unencyclopedic-like.
• Paragraphs shouldn't start with Vancouver is home to people of many ethnic backgrounds and religions. , also, that paragraph isn't written in an informative way.
• Demographics should be better cited.
• The city of Vancouver has developed a reputation as a tolerant city that is open to social experimentation and alternative lifestyles as well as being willing to explore alternative drug policies. is original research.
• Many other parts of the article needs removal of certain pov/OR-borderline material or just sourcing the would be good.

I see that lots of work was done on this article but even though it is broad enough and seems good, these aforementioned bullet-pointed requests should be taken care of before the GA status is awarded. Good luck and if any question arises, feel free to request assistance, Lincher 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

hongcouver

I took out the hongcouver section because its trivial, and no more significant than any other nickname (hollywood north, nofuncouver, terminal city, etc.) I also get the sense from the discussion here and at Hongcouver that others feel the same way and that the only reason it was kept is that the term was the subject of a debate. But if others feel it must be included, here it is for your cutting and pasting pleasure:

The influx of Hong Kong immigrants in the 1980s led to the popularization of a brag invented by new-immigrant Chinese youths from Hong Kong, who dubbed the city "Hongcouver". It was largely a media phenomenon and was never in wide usage among Vancouverites (who preferred their own name for their city), although it may have become current in other cities and areas of BC for a short time because of the media coverage.

The only thing I object to in the removal is that there is no longer a link to the Hongcouver article at all. As long as the article exists in WP, it should be linked to. If for no other reason but to keep the dialog going about whether the nickname deserves an entire article. So I've stuck a link in the See also section. --Ds13 18:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The deletion tag has been removed from the Hongcouver article, which has become far overblown from the original context of that phrase; some have tried to build the article into a discussion of Asianized Vancouver as though that were appropriate content for an article on the nickname Hongcouver, which it's not; the article transposes on the word a whole range of meanings/context that better fit under History of Chinese immigration to Canada and Chinatown (Vancouver) articles; and actually the Chinatown (Vancouver) article has become similarly diluted because of x-refs to Golden Village, which has its own article; and in general Chinatown articles as a whole (the main article and by-city ones like Chinatown-Vancouver) have become mapping projects for the new-Chinese malls, suburban enclaves and blurbs for food and supermarket chains; nothing to do with what "Chinatown" means in North American English, or is supposed to; similarly Canadian Chinese cuisine has redefined itself to be about what great authentic cuisine is available in Canada now, while being disparaging towards the Chinese-and-Western cuisine that is the original meaning and context. But back to the Hongcouver article - it doesn't deserve to exist, and what slim reason it has to be a separate article has been overlain with a whole host of secondary discussions of how Asiafied Vancouver is, and a history of the HK-takeover influx; that is not the meaning of Hongcouver, nor the appropriate context. Nofuncouver by comparison deserves a whole article, but it would be original research (as is much of Hongcouver), and also about something that's not ethnic-specific and also was really only a flash-in-the-pan, except what ethnic whiners have chosen to make of it since.Skookum1 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem hongcouver had been nominated for deletion. You suggested on the talk page, Skookum, but I don't think it happened. So I just nominated it. Five days before the Lords of Wiki make their call, so go here to get in on the action: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HongCouver.. Bobanny 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Fail

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

• Bilingual street signs can be seen at these centres of ethnic concentration. needs to state which languages (French, English or Chinese, English?).
• Vancouver is considered to be a relaxed city, particularly by North American standards. There is a lively cultural scene, many diversions, and year-round access to outdoor activities such as hiking, cycling, boating, and skiing. Some have called it a "city of neighbourhoods", each with a distinct character and ethnic mix. should be cited and be more specific, and removing all the visitor guide topics (like outdoor stuff).
• Police have, however, been involved in raids on storefront businesses that openly sold marijuana (such as the Da Kine Cafe) and have aggressive programs to shut down hydroponic marijuana growing operations (nicknamed "grow-ops") in residential areas. needs to be cited.
• Every year Vancouver holds one of the country's largest Gay Pride Parades, which attracts as many as hundreds of thousands of spectators. should have more accurate figures and be cited.
• Paragraph starting with Although Vancouver has more high-rises needs more citations.
• There are still uses of words like recently, current that should be cleared from the text.
• Some quotes aren't cited.

Here is another review and it especially focuses on having more citations for ambiguous details and to emphasize that no any original research issues (if there are) will be removed. Lincher 18:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lincher says above that it needed to say which languages the street signs were in, not that it needed a citation. But I guess the photo solves the dispute.Bobanny 04:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming Vancouver

The reason I put that Van Horne "probably" named Vancouver is that the original source is an anecdote in which CPR Land Commissioner LA Hamilton was taking Van Horne for a canoe ride in the harbour and Van Horne proclaimed that Granville wouldn't do for a name for this place, which was destined to become a great city, because nobody would know where it refers to. Everyone, however, knew about George Vancouver's explorations, says Van Horne to Hamilton, therefore that ought to be the name. Both Alan Morley (Vancouver:Milltown to Metropolis) and Eric Nicol (Vancouver) think the story is contrived, that maybe Van Horne suggested it to Hamilton, but it wasn't an original idea in a moment of inspiration. Morley claims that it was used as early as August 1884 in a Portland newspaper to refer to the western terminus of the CPR (p. 85). Chuck Davis (History of Metropolitan Vancouver website and the Greater Vancouver Book) buys the story hook line and sinker. I'm guessing the anecdote was told by LA Hamilton to Major Mathews, who loved this romantic notion of visionaries laying the groundwork for a great city of destiny (they corresponded in 1940 - see [9]. My point is that I think your source is wrong, Selmo. You wrote "officially named," so perhaps there was some kind of official ceremony that Van Horne made the declaration, but Morley, Nicol, and Chuck Davis don't mention that. Whoever signed the incorporation papers are the ones who officially (ie, legally) gave it the name Vancouver (which has since been noted that it was confusing name choice with nearby Van.Isle and Van.,Washington). Probably it was LA Hamilton, David Oppenheimer and that gang, but I don't have evidence so I'm not going to start an editing war over this :) Bobanny 22:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

The reason I put the Robson St. photo in the article (Image:Robson Oct 06.jpg) was to get some people in there, as the photos are mostly of architecture and scenery (as it was pointed out in the to do list as the top of this page). Now we have the mayor and the founding fathers so it's not as bad, but it's still a little lacking in humans (i.e., non-politicians). Anyway, I don't want to clutter the article unnecessarily with photos, and I'm certainly not stuck on the Robson one - I just wanted to point this out to see if others have an opinion. Maybe we should try and come up with a consensus on what the ideal proportions might be (# of beach shots, skyline, etc.) not just for now, but to guide the ongoing evolution of the article and give it some stability in appearance.Bobanny 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bobanny. I was the one that replaced your photo. My thoughts.... I like your photo. I agree 100% that more people are needed in the photos. Beaches, streets, parks, performance, business, anything. Ideally, I also think the photos should be distinctly Vancouver — depicting something other cities don't have. I replaced yours because I felt the Punjabi Market sign was a better fit for the demographics section. Perhaps there's one too many ocean/sky/mountain shots in there that could be bumped in favour of your street entertainer shot? --Ds13 00:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right there's nothing distinctly Vancouver about the Robson photo, which should be an important consideration. I initially chose it because it's a cross section of people (m/f, young/not so young, white, asian, etc.) and that's sort of what demographics is about, but main page images should be more identifiably "vancouver." Maybe a Punjabi Market photo with some people in it and a street sign, perhaps? Overall, the photo mix right now seems pretty good to me, and I don't think that would be an impediment to getting GA or whatever status. I'll just keep my eyes open, or maybe take some more myself (though it feels weird taking pictures of strangers). Bobanny 00:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Maybe a Punjabi Market photo with some people in it and a street sign, perhaps?" I thik that's a great idea. Multiple goals achieved. The composition of the current sign shot is very good, in my opinion. But combining both a large and readable street sign and a bunch of people in the same shot might be impossible. But hey, nice weather for trying, right?... ;) --Ds13 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment from my quick review

I can't comment on factual accuracy, but I gave this (very nice) article an A assessment based on the quick look over the article (it's much better than most city articles). However I noticed one anomaly - the "history" section stops in 1890. How did it grow from 5000 population to its present status as a world city? Thought I'd mention this since it's a GA nomination Walkerma 04:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's recently been expanded/time-forwarded on the History of Vancouver page but those changes were not synopsized here; and there's more needed in the other page, which currently runs up to 1940 thanks to User:Bobanny. It was me who left things in the 1890s because I wanted to check a few things before writing them (and then got caught up in the Elections Wikiproject documenting into wikihood all the provincial and federal election returns from the colony and early province, and other distractions since). I'll make a go at the synopsis 1890-19xx for this page, and I've always meant to revise the earliest stuff (Spanish/Capt Vancouver and early Burrard Inlet) as I know the stuff well, and also try and get at some additions/emendations to the other page, which I've been putting off/lost track of for a while now; I'm more a BC historian than a Vancouver one but I've got some basic texts here that will help me lay a skeleton story on civic growth and political/economic matters of the day; currently Bobanny's history focuses on racial/class/social history but it's as much a story of individuals and events as anything else; e.g. the visit of Edward VII when he was Duke and Cornwall of York may seem a trivial matter to us now; to citizens of the day it was one of te biggest events in the city's history, and was in fact critical to galvanize the "Britishness" of old Vancouver when the call to arms came in 1914 - thereby ending the local Gilded Age as all its well-born and well-educated talent signed up for the trenches, and most didn't come back).

Yikes. Just had a re-read of the history section, currently being twiddled with by 142.35.4.130, and lots is now mangled and with a bunch of non sequiturs and rather abrupt sentences. Looks like a second-language or elementary school user has gone at it, who also doesn't know the history but was just cutting and slicing the text that was already there. Frightening really for its point-form reduction into near-nonsense, but I'll wait for 142.35.4.130 and whomever else to pass by before fixing things back up ;-p Skookum1 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos re history section

As with the New Westminster article, it would be great if we could actually pipe in BC archives photos to use, as they're critical in understanding the flavour and layout of the city in the pre-Great War period (when it was a fashionable stopping-spot on the imperial Grand Tour during the Edwardian "Gilded Age", and all the fancy buildings around Victory Square got built - when the Hotel Vancouver, then at Georgia & Granville, was "uptown" and kind of out-of-downtown, with its own little commercial district well outside the commercial/retail mainstream on Cordova Street...). If anyone knows of public-domain heritage photos from the post-railway period (1885-present) please add them; from what I read in Wiki discussions of copyright rules the Charles Gentile and Leonard Franks collections and other early photos currently in BC Archives, VPL and Vancouver City Archives are not valid, as the artist(s) has/have been dead for over 100 years; this is not the case with any 20th Century photos, except the very earliest. While the archives/libraries can claim copyright, this does not mean that according to the law they actually have it, you see....Anyway, maps at least, and maybe old postcards are public-domain, and they turn up in antiquarian shops in whole bags.= I'll keep my eyes open....Skookum1 05:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did upload one image from BC Archives, but their online images are all embedded with their ugly logo and other crap about it being copyrighted and needing permission (you can see it here). As for the copyright laws, the following is copied from the city archives website:

The revisions to the Copyright Act (Bill C-32 An Act to Amend the Copyright Act) came into effect January 1, 1999.

Under the old law, photographs were protected for 50 years from the time the photograph was taken.

The new law is the life of the creator plus 50 years.

Photographs already in the public domain prior to January 1, 1999 will remain in the public domain (i.e. photographs taken up to December 31, 1948).

So that gives us access to a lot of photos. VPL isn't very forthcoming either, and BC Archives seem to be the worst for trying to give the impression that you have to pay them permission fees and whatever to use their images. If they're from 1948 or earlier and they put low rez versions online, we've got a right to use them because they're in the public domain. Library and Archives Canada also has a big scanned collection online, and they don't give any BS about copyright restrictions. (City Archive photos are here, and VPL's are here). And if there's BCA photos you really want to use, let me know which ones and I can crop that crap off with photoshop if necessary. If you upload any old photos to Wikipedia, ignore the drop down menu for the copyright, and stick this tag in the description: {{PD-old-50}}. Bobanny 11:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

GA promotion

This article now meets the requirements of a GA. Thanks to the many who have given a hand in rewriting and de-poving this article. Lincher 11:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)