Talk:British Columbia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Population Tables (was: Victoria's Population)

I've been trying to fill in the gap for Victoria's 1996 population on the population table under "Georgraphy" but my results are inconsistant. Victoria electoral districts shows all the provicinal districts, and BC Stats shows the populations for each of those ridings in 1996, but the numbers add up to 338226, which seems high considering it was 288346 in 2001 according to the chart. What am I missing?

Victoria-Beacon Hill			44040
Victoria-Hillside			49376
Oak Bay-Gordon Head			46379
Saanich South				48070
Saanich North and the Islands		50856
Esquimalt-Metchosin			52033
Malahat-Juan de Fuca			47472

Total					338226
Some of the electoral boundaries extend outside what is normally considered the Victoria area -- "the Islands" refer to the Gulf Islands, and I think Malahat-Juan de Fuca must include the towns of Jordan River and Port Renfrew. The 288, 346 sounds about right -- today I think it's somewhere around 320, 000. However, this is the population of Greater Victoria and area, from Sidney to Sooke, which includes 13 municipalities. The City of Victoria itself has only around 75,000. The chart makes no sense, since it includes Saanich as a municipality, which is part of the Victoria area -- so these people are being counted twice. I have removed Victoria from the list. It's now a top-9 list, so you need to find out what is actually 10th.Roger 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a table that lists BC cities by their "metro" populations. This is from the 2001 census, and there's a good, formalized, definition of how they include (or not) various municipalities into the population counts. The larger places (Vancouver, Victoria, Abbotsford) are designated "Census Metropolitan Areas", because they have urban cores of over 100,000. The others on the list are "Census Agglomerations". However, "Census Metropolitan Areas or Census Agglomerations" was far too unwieldy a title for the table, so I just called it "Communities". I'd welcome a more appropriate label. AshleyMorton 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supposed Cascadia lure

Yet it cannot escape the draw of joining the Northwest US to form an area termed "Cascadia."

This would seem to say they will be joining the northwest US. What's the point of this line? Colin dellow

It's not there anymore so someone must have seen fit to get rid of it; the Cascadia issue is complicated but certainly not a "draw that cannot be escaped"; and although the concept of a shared "nationhood" with WA and OR is popular, the term "Cascadia" is not and is identifiably American in context.Skookum1 03:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okanagan

Also, I moved the comment about the Okanagan to the bottom of the page -- it was prior sitting in the middle of the description of how BC came to be and was a little out of place. -- Colin dellow

It's not there anymore; what was it?Skookum1 03:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed that you have described the Okanagan as a 'retirement ghetto'. I would disagree. It has a booming agricultural/vinicultural economy as well as a great deal of forestry interests. It would be appropriate for the statement to be modified. Samsomite

Be bold! Make the change! Fishhead64 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Nations content?

I'd like to see something written here about the native peoples and their history with British Columbia. Kingturtle 02:07 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

See First Nations in British Columbia but it's true that that page isn't really complete, and this one could use a synopsized form.Skookum1 03:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vancouver Island comment needs work

That last sentance/paragraph about Vancouver Island needs some more detail. It sort of just hangs there. dave 08:48, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Maps

That map is horrible by the way. Anywhere else we can get free maps? dave 04:32, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

http://maps.gov.bc.ca for your own use (try Provincial Basemap or the new Land and Resource Data Warehouse Catalogue, which is a more elaborate version of Basemap). Copyrighted content despite free distribution, so can't be used by Wikipedia unless the maps branch is approached for permission.Skookum1 03:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Culture

Something could be added on culture. I'm not sure just what, but here are some idea nubs: European and Asian (mainly Chinese, until recently) elements. Fine and performing arts; folk arts; gallery districts; classical music (symphonies and chamber music); jazz, rock, folk & "alternative" music scenes; theatre; writers & poets; outdoor festivals; film-making. All of this increasingly with a "West-Coast Canadian" outlook. Multiculturalism & recognition of Native Culture (perhaps especially "North Coast" - Haida, etc) carving and design. Outdoor-involvement as an aspect of culture. Ethnic cuisines (e.g., Chinese, Greek, Italian, French, Mexican, Thai, East-Indian) and fine dining.

This is a fallacy, and an over-generalization about "European" identity, as if British, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Irish and others were all the same; in the CAnadian Encyclopedia a sinophile version of BC's history even claims that there were only two non-aboriginal ethnic groups in early BC, the Chinese "and those of British descent". This is such an affront to the facts it's disreputable that it ever reached print; never mind the idea that "those of British descent" included the very different American and Canadian elements as well as the twenty-five varieties of British.
Ethnic holidays, also, one presumes. Also the union-corporate dichotomy in BC is very much cultural. What is culture? Such a loaded word; and full of so many cheap generalizations "by ethnic group" that It's often downright patronizing and insulting....Skookum1 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my comments on the Talk Page of Canadian English, and below about proposed new BC Politics and BC English page. Also suggest a local-specialities page for original BC cuisine such as the Nanaimo bar, Lumberjack's Breakfast and the Chinese Smorgasbord; on to creating a beer parlour page later tonightSkookum1 03:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

BC Politics - time for a new page?

The article asserts that the politics of B.C. shift rapidly between left and right. However, I don't think is born out by the facts. The right-wing social credit party ruled the province for nearly fifty years (and were really only social conservatives, being hardcore nationalizers and patronizers of social programs and sweet deals with unions - as well as acrimony with unions, of course). The Left-Wing NDP got into power once due to a vote split between the Social Credit Party and the Conservative party.

This is a-historical garbage that has no bearing on the actual history involved. The Tories in 1972? Vote-splitting? This is just another demonstration of the shoddy standards of public political education, and the partisan revision of history to suit current political partisanship's self-image. The Tories were dead in the water in BC in 1972, and were a smaller component in the 1972 and 1975 elections than the BC Liberals, who if anyone "split" votes with the Socreds it was them; but the difference between a Liberal voter and a Social Credit voter was as wide as that between the NDP and the Socreds or between the NDP and Liberals. The whole concept of vote-splitting is, in any case, a self-serving fabrication of the polarizing elements in our polity; the idea that there should be only two parties, and that somehow you have to vote either "right" or "left". It's in BC that this dichotomoy has first become so openly challenged and also become regarded with acute, bitter cynicism as to the lack of real choices, and how the left/right groups have monopolized the political spectrum, giving the public only one of two extremes instead of a proper range of potentially compatible political platforms actually reflective of the electorate.Skookum1 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More recently, the NDP won twice in the ninties due to vote splits resulting from the complete meltdown of the Social Credit Party.

Where did you take your poli sci? High school? The editorial pages of The Province? The collapse of the Social Credit Party did not involve "vote-splitting"; it involved the total migration of a huge block of votes to a "new" party (the reborn Liberals); no vote-splitting was involved, not even a tiny little bit, in 1991 - or since, for that matter, despite the partisan rhetoric on either side regarding smaller parties that "they" see "should" be part of their own fold.Skookum1 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, throughout B.C. history I don't think it can be asserted that the province switches between the wings.

But you obviously know no BC history in any kind of context to license you to make such an unfounded judgement; it's totally wrong. W-R-O-N-G.Skookum1 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today, the Liberal party is made up of a lot of ex-social credit members.

yeah, and worse, like former Reformers. And outright carpetbaggers and political opportunists. The idealism of the Wilson Liberals is long-dead, replaced by the usual big-old-party cynicism and power mongering; not that the NDP are any different, it's just their power-mongering priorities favour their own backers; our whole system is pork barrel and patronage, and both sides of the political spectrum engage in that AND AREN'T INTERESTED IN CHANGING THE SYSTEM unless those changes benefit their own party (which is why Carole James denounced the 57% of BC voters, and 77 of 79 ridings, that endorsed BC-STV, which would weaken the NDP's control of seats and allow other parties into the house; Carole James makes all kinds of nice claims about supporting proportional representation, now official NDP policy; but under proportional rep the voters don't choose their candidates; the parties have their lists etc. and it makes the parties even more powerful than under the plurality system. But the NDP aren't really interested in democracy, only in their own party's survival....Skookum1 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 So, it seems to me that B.C. has been a much more right wing province in its history then the article would protray.  However, this may be changing given the result of the election where the Green and the NDP together had more votes then the Liberal party.
Yeah, so what? Green voters aren't leftist, and they don't vote NDP; so what's the point in comparing the combined Green/NDP vote with the Liberals? There isn't one, except in the fabrications and spin-doctoring of NDP political engineers.Skookum1 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll insert here my proposal for a British Columbia Politics page, as the milieu is too complicated to sum up easily and there's many issues and agendas and elements to describe. I've prepped a Solidarity (British Columbia) page but haven't started writing it yet. "Pavement politics" and other items, including ethnic strife and class warfare, should also be addressed.Skookum1 03:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed it's time for a new page in B.C. politics. But it's unlikely to change for some time.Roger 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I can see what the editor was trying to communicate (granting the person the benefit of doubt), it was done extremely poorly. The statements are largely opinion and conjecture:
- "two main parties" is an oversimplification and "little middle ground" is opinion.
- How BC (or California) is viewed by "outsiders" is speculation and conjecture.
- There is no way to measure cynicism.
- Whether people vote for or against a party is conjecture. No one can really know what people are thinking when they mark their ballots. If this statement is to be made, it would be based upon polling done by polling companies, and should be cited as such.
- Full of weasel words: "widely perceived", "is viewed", etc.
I could go on, but I'll leave it for now. The closest to neutral portion of this section is the final paragraph; otherwise, this needs a major rewrite.Fluit 19:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur. I'm happy to take a crack at it later this week. I think the key here is to stick to verifiable facts, to be brief, and begin a more expansive Politics of British Columbia page wherein we can happily battle to our collective hearts' content. Fishhead64 19:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your wish is granted. See Politics of British Columbia. Ground Zero | t 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes on History

Following in bold are interjections of mine on current content; didn't want to interfere with the main article but just wanted to bring these ideas/informations formward.

Main article: History of British Columbia From 1818 to 1846, British Columbia south of 54°40' and west of the Rocky Mountains was part of the Oregon Country (only to Americans; the term was never used by the British). The land was nominallyunder the control of the Hudson's Bay Company, and was divided into the departments of Columbia (south of the Columbia River) and New Caledonia (north of the river). In 1846, the Oregon Treaty divided the territory along the 49th parallel to Georgia Strait, with the area north of this boundary (and all of Vancouver Island) becoming exclusively British territory. Vancouver's Island, the official name of the colony on Vancouver Island, became a Crown colony in 1849. In 1858, in response to the Fraser Canyon gold rush, the mainland portion of the former Oregon Country was organized into the colony of British Columbia. The Cariboo region ("Central Interior") of British Columbia experienced a gold rush in the years 1862 to 1865. This created a rapid influx of miners and settlers, about 30,000 in all. [this figure is applicable to the Fraser Gold Rush, not the Cariboo; actual numbers for the latter confused by fudgy popular histories confusing the two rushes. The colonial authorities feared the gold rush might spread beyond B.C.'s northern border (54°40' north), so the Stikine Territory was created in 1862. That’s not why the Stikine Territory was created; there was already a rush on the Stikine, with steamboats serving the mining camps; the territory was created to prevent an American annexationist putsch. However, the following year this new territory was disestablished, most of its area going to B.C., whose northern limit was increased to its current location, 60° north. This period in the province's history is acknowledged today in the Gold Rush Trail: historic and other sites along the route from Lillooet to Barkerville and beyond. Some of the towns along this route are numbered according to their distance from the end of the navigable part of the Fraser River at Lillooet. Lillooet is the northern end of the southern section of navigable waters on the Fraser, but the roadposts are not measured from the river, but from the bend in Main Street, aka the Golden Mile, off a survey point established by the Royal Engineers and since decorated with a stone cairn to mark “Mile 0” . Best known of these is the town of 100 Mile House which, along with the residential hub of 108 Mile Ranch, forms a substantial trading, tourism, and population centre for this region. After the mainland's gold rushes collapsed and the colony almost went bankrupt from building roads in its interior [and endemic corruption], the two colonies of Vancouver's Island and British Columbia agreed to merge and share the debt. The merger was effected in 1866, with the name British Columbia being applied to the newly united colony. Several factors played in the decision of British Columbia to join Canada on July 20, 1871. These included fear of annexation to the United States, the overwhelming debt created by rapid population growth, the need for government-funded services to support this population, and the economic depression caused by the end of the gold rush. The decision was made largely because the Canadian government offered to link British Columbia to the more settled parts of Canada via the Canadian Pacific Railway and offered to pay off the $1,000,000 British Columbian debt. The completion of the CPR in 1885, and its upgrades during 1886, was a huge boost to Vancouver, the line's terminus founded in 1886, and it rapidly grew to become one of Canada's largest cities. The province became a centre of fishing, mining, and especially of logging throughout the twentieth century. In 1903, British Columbia's territory shrank somewhat after the Alaska Boundary Dispute settled the vague boundary of the Alaska panhandle. Prior to the treaty the British claim included the “Yukon Ports” of Skagway and Haines as well as Forts Taku and Stikine, at the mouths of those rivers. The treaty was signed under duress, with then-President Teddy Roosevelt threatening to invade and annex British Columbia if the US did not get the settlement it wanted (a tactic that was also used to force the 49th Parallel boundary in 1846). B.C. has long taken advantage of its Pacific coast to have close relations with East Asia. However, this has caused friction, with frequent feelings of animosity towards Asian immigrants. This was most manifest during the Second World War when many people of Japanese descent were interned in the interior of the province, and also came to the forefront with the Anti-Oriental Riots of 1907. The post-World War II years saw Vancouver and Victoria also become cultural centres as poets, authors, artists, and musicians flocked to the beautiful scenery and warmer temperatures. The influx of draft dodgers from the Vietnam-era United States[ in the late 1960s and early 1970s brought in a new wave of political radicalism, journalistic fervour, artistic talent and academics/intelligentsia. Tourism also began to be recognized as playing an important role in the economy. The rise of Japan and other Pacific economies was a great boost to the B.C. economy, although BC has always had trade partners in the Far East.

Skookum: Only one response to your comments: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. :-) Go for it & make the changes. You know your BC history pretty well. Luigizanasi 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geography section

Considering Geography of British Columbia, I think it is reasonable to consider condensingthis section, I'd do it myself ifI wasn't so incompetent at it. Circeus 15:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see British Columbia Coast, the BC subdivisions of Coast Mountains and pages for other mountain ranges and areas such as the Cariboo Mountains, Interior Plateau, Lower Mainland and so on.Skookum1 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The population you show for Victoria (288,000) in the 10 largest municipalities is wrong. It is the poplulation for the whole metropolitan area, not the city of Victoria. Your page on Victoria shows the municipal population at about 75,000.

"British Columbia English" page?

It's a nostrum in Canadian-culture dictums that there's no distinct dialect in English Canada outside the Maritimes. I beg to differ and just today posted a long list of special BC words and usages on the Talk page at Canadian English. Looking for support for a new BC English page which allows me to rant about how Toronto "stole" terms like Hollywood North and the Big Smoke from Vancouver and terms like "Cottage Country" and "Westcoast" (one word usage) were introduced in response (not that that's all the page would be for).Skookum1 03:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you include saltchuck and black ice? --JimWae 03:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you have demonstrated is that there is a rich lexicon of regionalisms in B.C., but this, in and of itself, does not make it a distinct dialect. I might be able to tell somebody was from B.C. by some of the words he used, but if I got him to read aloud from, say, the Wikipedia article on Diocletian, I could not narrow down what part of Canada he was from. On the other hand, if a Cape Bretoner read the article aloud, I could probably guess his origin in a few tries. That's a dialect: systematic pronunciation differences. Indefatigable 06:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greetings from Tranna! English is a rich and diverse language, but I do not believe this is significant enough a topic or dialect to justify its own article yet. To start: is there a body of citable works about BC English? Though not definitive, there are very few online mentions of BC English. Conversely, there are many online and printed works regarding Newfoundland English. As well: I wonder whether this is categorised in the Oxford Guide to World English (by Tom McArthur) which reviews the current state of the language worldwide (e.g., in the US, Britain, and the Great White North). Moreover, the precise origin and etymology of various words that might've been stolen or borrowed from elsewhere is often unclear, but can be expanded upon.
Perhaps there's sufficient cause to create an article about Canadianism(s) from the current section about Canadian English vocabulary (since this is meaty already) or similar, but that's it for now. Unless there's an objection, I will do this. I can be coerced otherwise, though. And now I need to go the washroom. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly an article on Canadianisms and local argots across the provinces, including specialized trade terms and such not found in the US. But I'm just worried that my long list of BC special uses/special words is bulky within the existing Canadian English page.

That there's few online mentions of BC English is part of that teleogy or whatever it is that I was referring to; that by only looking for dialects in BC, and being out of touch with the nature of social and cultural realities in BC, no one has taken seriously the idea of dialects worth looking for there, presuming all to be ethnic. The Chinook Jargon's influence, as well as that of direct-from-Britain (or via the Empire; in either case rather than via Toronto) is prominent and the words I mentioned - not high muckamuck but the other two - are "markers" of the regoinal culture shared by the Pacific Northwest of which BC is a part. There's also the explicit American influence, and the omnipresence of First Nations English in most BC communities, especially in the Interior and on the Island. That Canadians have not recognized, or not studied, the concept is because they have never considered it. My wordlist includes basic things like geographic terminologies and frames of reference, but other entries than those qualify as bona fide regional words; or words which identifiably, or near-identifiably, started in the region. The list is only 50-80% of what it could be, I think. And that's just lexicon and usagesSkookum1 09:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there! I don't discount the importance of the information, its breadth, and your rationale (and I find it rather informative), but if a sufficient body of knowledge and works does not exist regarding BC English (which should be cited in a titular article), said article may be POV and un-WP:V. I can write substantial text about a plethora of 'Torontoisms' or idiosyncrasies for any regional 'dialect', but it may all be moot it I can't cite anything to support it. And if mentions elsewhere aren't in abundance, Wp is not necessarily the place to buck that trend (though appreciate attempts at doing so). The last thing I'd want in such an endeavour is for such an article to be created, only to succumb to a potential WP:VfD. I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony 09:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone please remember the Wikipedia policies of No original research and Cite your sources. This means you must not add information based on your own personal experience of a certain variety of English, but must use published research instead, and then cite the sources you used. --User:Angr/talk 18:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos

British Columbia is renowned for its wide variance of breathtaking natural magnificence, yet the only photograph in the article is of the capitol building. I think it would serve the article well if a local posted a few shots of BC's famous landscapes. Soltras 16:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


List of "People from BC" is kinda lean (and strange)

Somewhere in Wiki there's a longer list, with bigger names. Either Vancouver or BC people, can't remember which it's a list of. Where's Raymond Burr? Yvonne de Carlo? The Pantages family? Mandrake the Magician? "Born in BC" kind of limits the possibilities, too....Malcolm Lowry, for instance, was fully British Columbianized in the most mudflatty, drunked-out backbush kinda way you can get, but he was born in Britain. Fairuza Balk? Elias Koteas? And what the hell is that Campbell guy doing at the top of the list? Surely there's people more deserving - and more famous. And what's Gordo known for outside of BC? Getting busted DUI in Maui? Hell, Joey Shithead's more famous.Skookum1 04:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't put in Koteas and Balk yet, given that there's two dozen other notable actors who should also go on the list if they do, e.g. Eric McCormack, Ryan Reynolds, Nicholas Lea, William B. Davis and others even more high-profile. The issue here seems to be the word "fame", which automatically predisposes itself towards actors and musicians and others whose careers are defined by fame. The same isn't quite true of sports figures, and even less so of politicians (for whom whose careers are defined by infamy is more apt). I took out Gordon Campbell from this list as a fatuous mention of someone who's only famous/infamous in his own province and only marginally outside it, even in the rest of Canada. I think the sports figures should be in a separate list. And I also think that "born in BC" is too limiting, given how many British Columbians-by-adoption there are.Skookum1 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


New list item cut-out

" OfficialLang = English |" Really not sure about that; I know, I know it seems logical but I recall a political debate about this; we don't actually have a piece of legislation or formal constitutional officialdom for the language; it might be described in the context of a working language, but AFAIK there is NO official language as such in British Columbia, other than by way of it being the language government legislation and documentation and such are issued in; but constitutionally or "officially"...well, I guess it depends on what the usual use of "official" is; but it's not like with English and French at the national level, where they're constitutionally as well as legislatively-mandated "official".Skookum1 09:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted political propaganda

Since 2001 for the first time since 1937 a centrist government was elected.

Really? I had to take that out. Theoretically the Coalition governments were centrist, and when people were voting for him the first time around they were under the misapprehension that WAC Bennett was a centrist. But the not-so-subtle subtext of the above phrase is the pretense that the new Liberals are a centrist government. They're not, and anybody who says they are is either off their medication or taking too much. The Gordon Wilson-led Liberal opposition was centrist; the hijacked Liberal Party since the Campbell takeover is ANYTHING BUT. And there's a good argument to be made that the Harcourt government was centrist; if the Campbell government is "centrist", then sure as shootin' the Harcourt government was too.....hell, so was the Vander Zalm government, too, by comparison....

When will people learn that Wikipedia should not be used for partisan historical engineering; it won't work in the long run because such outrageous claims (or soft-pedalled goop like the above-deleted phrase) can always be easily corrected/deleted.Skookum1 22:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Cannabis Culture" section also qualifies as political propaganda and should be removed. Landroo 13:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parliament Buildings vs. "Legislative Buildings"

Someone just changed this to the latter; but it's not correct and I've never heard that. The official name is actually "Parliament Buildings", just as British Columbia's legislative assembly is also called a Parliament. "The Legislature Buildings" I have heard, or "the Legislature"; but I haven't heard "Legislative Buildings", and the proper name, in common use in the media also, as well as tourism bumpf, is "Parliament Buildings".Skookum1 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The legislative assembly shouldn't be called a parliament; I've never heard that. Yes, the locals refer to them as Parliament Buildings, but I think that's just a common error. It is unquestionably a legislature (and houses MLAs), so unless there's some historical reason why they should be referred to as Parliament Buildings, I would stick with Legeslative Buildings.Roger 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not true, even the mailing address is "Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC," as seen in this example [1]. So Parliament Buildings, it is. Fishhead64 22:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The official name, used in provincial statute, is "Parliament Buildings". For example, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 258, s. 1, defines "Legislative Precinct" to mean "the Parliament Buildings, the legislative grounds and Confederation Garden Park,other buildings in Victoria or parts of them that are from time to time occupied and used by members of the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of their parliamentary duties including any premises from time to time occupied by officers and staff of the Legislative Assembly, and other land or buildings or both, other than constituency offices, designated by minute of the committee" (emphasis added herein).
Various other statutes requiring written notice to a Minister state that the notice must be delivered to the "Parliament Buildings at Victoria, British Columbia" (i.e., see the Income Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 215, s. 18(2); Corporation Capital Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 73, s. 32(1); Insurance Premium Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 232, s. 17(1)).
As for the historical reason: a Legislative Assembly forms part of a Parliament, along with the Crown. In bicameral legislatures, such as Canada and the UK, parliament is the House of Commons, Senate/House of Lords (as the case may be), and the Crown. Fluit 22:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Politics Section - Accuracy and NPOV

The Politics section of the article seems to make a number of assertions wihout any references (e.g. that each party has 15-20% core support -- may be true, but would be nice to see where that stat came from), and definitely lacks NPOV, beeing oriented against the current Liberal government. If noone objects, I'd like to seriously edit this section (or possibly even rewrite it) Ikh 04:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's such an old saw in BC politics - a staple in pundit's columns since the WAC era - that I'm not sure where it originally came from. Supposedly either party ranks their core support (privately) in this range, otherwise claiming 20-30%, boastfully 35%, but the truth of the polls throughout BC history is that the "uncommitted" is the biggest single bloc, but the party organizations have wound up coalescing at opposite ends of the spectrum instead of the middle. The various efforts in Wiki to style the current BC Liberal Party as "centrist" point to someone's partisan fiddling with history/truth, but in an open-edit environment that's to be taken for granted and easily fixable. As far as the 15-20% goes, a general cite in the direction of Allan Fotheringham's columns 1972-86 in BC, various Jack Webster commentaries, dozens of VancSun and VancProv editorials, and quite a lot of curriculum in any course in BC political culture taught in BC universities. (There probably is; but how odd it was to find BC history only marginally taught at BC universities, so I'd expect the polisci depts maybe to be more oriented at Canadian, US and global politics, as opposed to BC's; "even our media has been colonized" one Edmontonian commented about Central Canadian media imperialism in the 1970s; might as well as "and our academic have always been colonized, and colonial in character", only representing and cultivating indigenous studies and ideas.

How's that for opinionated? Aside from the digression, the basic point that the 15-20 thing is an old nostrum in BC politics; I'm re-reading old history standards lately so if I come across it I'll put it back in and cite it; it was here before I found this page, though, and it turns up all over the place. Polling companies get paid by political parties more often than not, but I'd expect that ipsos or decima or whomever probably has some stats.Skookum1 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official language

afaik BC's official language is english, not english and french.

the fact that canada's official languages are both english and french does not imply that the same is true for each province. and the official language is different from province to province in canada. correct me if i'm wrong. Qyd 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authority over language is undefined under the Constitution Act (see discussion in the article Bill 101). As far as I'm aware, only Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Manitoba have specific language legislation. British Columbia, therefore, has no "official" language, so the federal Official Languages Act (Canada) pertains. Fishhead64 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it did, then bilingual services would have to be available through provincial gov and crown corp offices; they're not; only at federal ministries/services. Better to avoid mention of an official language rather than state BC has English and French as official languages. If that were the case, then French could be used in the BC Ledge; it can't; House rules prescribe English, I think, and that's the closest to "official" I can think of. PS I'm not anti-French, and speak French really well for a British Columbian; I just don't think overlaying "Canadian values" over BC in the absence of the latter having any - ;-) - is well-served by juxtaposing cross-Canada standards that don't fit in BC, and don't have any context. Hence my own deletion of the French name of the province long ago, which I see someone has reinstated. BTW the French use "la fleuve Columbia" for the river, but their "Colombie-Brittanique" (or is that Britannique?) misses the point of the name's origin, which was to do with the name of the river, not "Columbia" as a continent/country.Skookum1 02:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is no "official" language; however, in some instances english is mandated. As for the Official Languages Act (Canada), it has no application to provincial government operations. The dominion government has no jurisdiction to impose official languages on the provinces. That's why the post offices in BC, being federal institutions, is bilingual and the motor vehicle office, being provincial, only operates in english. Fluit 08:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV Issues in Politics Section

The politics section is a mess and badly needs to be cleaned up. The biggest problem seems to be (surprise, surprise) too much scepticism regarding all BC parties. The BC Liberals are attacked, then the BC NDP, then the BC Soc Creds, then the old BC NDP... One could call it NPOV as it attacks everyone equally, but that seems like faulty reasoning to me. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's going on, I think, is that people from the respective sides need to see their opponents trashed; and don't have anything useful to say about their side. Writing poitics neutrally is a major problem; got to be done here but I agree the slashy tone of some of the comments (which I've occasionally clarified or corrected) is like the stew of the overall BC/Vancouver political/social swamp; a swamp of ideas and attitudes where it's hard to see what's actually going on, and to not get swallowed up in the inherent factionalism of the place. Which is, perhaps, its main political trait.Skookum1 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, sounds like BC politics to me! Seriously, though, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Cuivië and Skookum1. It needs cleaning up. Sunray 08:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I cleaned up the POV in the 'Politics' section, at least, in my opinion I did. I'm going to remove the POV tag, now. --outsidethewall 00:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not too shabby. I think your edit warrants removal of the POV tag. Fluit 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of sections

The sections in this article seem to be rather strangely ordered. For example "History" is well down in the article and occurs after sections such as "Recreation." By convention, the history of a place is usually one of the first sections in an article. I propose to re-order the sections. If anyone has concerns, please raise them here. Sunray 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BC's Name

As an outsider, I am wondering why this province, unlike all other Canadian provinces, bears the name 'British'. And are there are any moves to change it. Some information on this in the article would be cool. The Singing Badger 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be better to put the information in the existing articles New Caledonia or Colony of British Columbia. The story goes that Queen Victoria was presented with s short menu of options, including New Georgia and New Caledonia, but since those were already taken elsewhere, she went with "British Columbia." There are good historical reasons. The Oregon Treaty had removed British claims to a large part of the old Hudson's Bay Company's Columbia District (named, obviously, for the Columbia River drainage) below the 49th parallel. So British Columbia distinguished the region from the American one. When the colony entered the Canadian confederation, it kept the name by which it had been known for the previous thirteen years. As far as I know, there is no serious movement to amend the name, because of its history (but, more probably, because it's something people don't get too worked up about). Fishhead64 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Side comment: every few years or so some politically-correct individual trots out the "imperialist" nature of British Columbia's name, and desires a "more Canadian" name or one "more reflective of Canada's/BC's cultural diversity" etc. Thing is, there are no real alternatives, other than the noxious "Canadian Columbia"; as Queen Victoria remarked when she added "British" to the old HBC name for the region ("Columbia"), some distinction had to be made to distinguish Her Majesty's new possession from the Latin American country (Colombia), and also from the poetic name commonly used then and now for the United States (Columbia). New Caledonia, the old name and sometimes still current regional name for north-central BC, was already taken by the French colony of the same name near Australia. New Georgia, which had been a tentative cartographic name for the Gulf of Georgia-Puget Sound region during Capt. Vancouver's time, was also the name of an island in the South Atlantic (further north along the coast cartographer's also named New Hanover and New Bremen, but these didn't stick any longer than New Georgia did). The US annexationist/filibustering name for what became BC was "Jefferson" (yawn).
Historical reality is that BC was a uniquely British creation, and as so often bemoaned by central Canadian historians and by p-c historians, BC was heavily British in flavour and culture right up until the 1960s and even a bit since (esp. on the Island, as Fishhead64 has noted elsewhere). Denying the British legacy in BC - the much benighted and severely maligned British legacy - is revisionist and anti-multicultural; BCers have a right to be proud of the British legacy, no matter how some new Canadians and the influx of Ontarians see that legacy; suggesting otherwise is the same as suggesting that Nova Scotia needs a new "more Canadian, less British name". Similar complaints occasionally surface about "Pacific Northwest", with dimwits saying it should be "Pacific Northeast" etc, and lately someone in the newspapers here complaining that it was an "American" name that doesn't include BC (it has, does and always will).
I used to joke that we could use the name for the legendary straits of the Northwest Passage once believed to be accessed by the Strait of Juan de Fuca - Anian, in which case we'd be Anianians (not to be confused with "onions"). One name I particularly like, of my own invention, but not BC-specific, is Skookum Illahee - the big, strong land in the Chinook Jargon; or, alternatively, "the land of skookum", i.e. where the word skookum is used; this region would include OR, WA, ID, northern CA, YT and parts of AK, too, however......Skookum1 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History section needs a major rewrite

I have two issues concerning the history section, on which I'd appreciate some feedback before I start going into Vlad the Impaler mode.

The history section as it stands is an expansion (by me, largely) of a shorter, largely incorrect (or at best vague) prior version, and I ran out of steam wherever I ran out (same thing happened on my History of the Lillooet People page on my own website, which attempts to address the history of the St'at'imc but I only got up to the gold rush era). I meant to get back to it (the BC history material here), I really did!Skookum1 05:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My proposal is to cut the pre-Confederation material down to a couple of short paragraphs, referencing the more expansive, specific articles, and expand the post-Confederation history so that it accurately reflects its relative importance:

  • A paragraph on the early days of the province, settlement, founding of new cities, resource expansion - through WWI
There are at least three (maybe four) distinct periods at question within that timeframe, and it would do at least two of them discredit to focus on the paradigm you've suggested here. Settlement, founding of new cities, resource expansion - that's decidedly post-railway in nature and out of character with the exploration/fur trade and colonial/pre-railway province periods. Timeline here is 1776/1787-1846, 1849-188x (1882-1885 somewhere), and 188x-1914. The impact of WW I should be an entire article, and 1914/18-1929 is an entire epoch. THEN the history can get into the Depression properly, i.e. in context. A fourth pre-WWI period that's valid is from 188x to 1900-1903, when the party system was instituted and from that period on to 1913 the huge speculative boom in real estate and railways, mining properties and more (post-Klondike frenzy, and Premier McBride). But the two early periods are very important, and very distinct even from each other; without outlining them much of the later character of the province - and some of its mystique - will be missing. Fur colony to gold colony to rail/port/forest/fish colony to - to whatever kind of colony it is today (and it is still a colony).Skookum1 05:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A paragraph on BC through the Depression (including relief camps and the collapse of the Conservative Party) and WWII, including the deportation of the Japanese, ending with the Fraser River floods of 1948.
FYI the current On To Ottawa articles barely touch on BC's role in that; again the idea for WikiProject British Columbia to coordinate topics/articles in need of creation/fixup/formatting.Skookum1 06:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1929-1948, and I agree with 1948; or at least 1945.Skookum1 05:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A paragraph on BC through the fifties and sixties, referencing the rise of the two-party system, the expansion of infrastructure and crown corporations (e.g., ferries, BC Hydro, PGE), and ending with the defeat of Bennett.
1945/48-1972, yup.Skookum1 05:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A paragraph on BC in the seventies and eighties, discussing the innovations introduced by the Barrett government (the ALR and ICBC), Bill Bennett, Expo 86, and the restraint programme, and ending with the collapse of the Socreds.
I've been meaning to write an article on the Solidarity Coalition for the longest time (not here, of course, but on its own)......could mention the birth of Canada's first Green Party in 1983, too; the Peace Movement in Vancouver in 80-82 comes to mind also.
  • A paragraph on BC in the 90s and 00s, the rise of the BC Liberals, the economic malaise of the nineties, and the collapse and recovery of the NDP.
Been meaning to get an article on the Salmon War for the longest time....pls note my proposal for a WikiProject British Columbia as a central coordinating place for BC-related articles.

Again, none of these paragrpahs need to be overly long - a brief reference to the major events with the referenced articles appropriately linked, and expanded discussion in the History of British Columbia page. Thoughts? Fishhead64 19:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I definitely agree on synopsizing here, but I think some detail is necessary in the sectional/divisional pages. The modern history "scares" me because it's so volatile, and in my work on the Elections wikiproject I noticed a lot of propagandizing and vanity edits; even on the history of the Liberal Party there's some soft-soaping on early 20th Century stuff, meant to accommodate modern party sentiments. So myself I'm safer with the older material; but also very strong on it being important, and despite its obscurity necessary to cover even in synopsis form.Skookum1 05:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, Skookum. As you can see, I did a little work on this, but then ran out of my own steam and have been waiting to build up another head of it. The only thing I would stress here is being synoptic. Detail should go to the subsidiary articles on the colonies and, of course, the main History of British Columbia. As its stands, I still think I left too much detail on the pre-Confederation history. In addition, I think we might want to begin considering a separate page on the pre-colonial history of British Columbia. But my knowledge of BC archaeology and cultural anthropology is next to nil. Fishhead64 06:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Somewhere below I make suggestion that an archaeology section/page(s) is needed, and on this page that would only have to be in the "See Also" listings. Certain sites - the Fraser Midden, Xa:ytem, Keatley Creek, the Scowlitz Mounds (also known as the Fraser Valley pyramids) and various others (other than heritage and cultural sites such as Ninstints, which I'd expect are already in Wiki - or not? Hmm.) In general all of this is Northwest aboriginal history, in its archaeological rather than political sense; over in the Indigenous Peoples WikiProject I've wound up being volunteered for a section in the Indian Wars page tying in the history of the wars in the Plateau and Northwest Coast, which aren't mentioned even though they're long before the Sioux Wars and all that stuff; lately mostly I've just been doing edits and things like table compilations and haven't set at narrative articles in a while; other than tidying things up or emending them. This means a section for that page on the Palouse War, the Cayuse War, the Yakima War (all existing articles), and the Fraser Canyon and Wild Horse Creek Wars; the context of the Indian Wars article is decidedly American, so I'm not sure whether to incorporate things like the Chilcotin War or Lamalcha War into it; technically the Metis Rebellions are part of the story, too; and individual rebels-cum-outlaws like Slumach or Simon Gunanoot (names I wouldn't drop if I didn't think YOU might know them, Fishhead64).

On the one hand the Indigenous Project should transcend the borders; consensus is the Mexican cultures/peoples/languages are all part of the same project; so likewise the project(s). I've been also working a bit on the Oregon boundary dispute and related stuff (still have to create Okanagan Trail and Okanagan (people) and Okanagan (language), at least as stubs (amazing they're missing, given what else is "here"); and still intend to scan up a good map, also another for the Alaska Boundary Dispute, but the point is in joint-history sections, especially pre-1846, to have "balanced coverage" and even of course transcend our own petty nationalist biases (which I've been known to spout, whether in fun or vitriol, while at the same time I think life might be more interesting in Santa Fe or New Orleans or...back to the point, such as it was: this is why the proposed BC Wikiproject; partly to co-coordinate with our neighbours on things like history, archaeology/anthropology, transborder issues and so on; and from within the group to coordinate what looks like which and where things should be, and organized how (since lists are proliferating all over the place, and that "famous" people list on this page could really use retitling, though to what I don't know; famous-to-just-us doesn't count, I think (my two bits, or naika kwatah as the Chinook has it). My thoughts, for what they're worth....time for bed.Skookum1 07:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Industry/Economy

???????????????? ????????????????

Splendor Sine Occasu

In my recent addition of this to the opening paragraph, I used the traditional - if inaccurate - translation, such as was used for years in schools and government and tourist bumpf - "Splendor Without Equal" (I've seen "Unequalled", too). In in the infobox a slightly more accurate translation, at least as far as the actual context of the phrase goes, is "Splendor Without Diminishment". Occasu is actually "eclipsed", as in eclipsed in beauty, i.e. by comparison; or "veiled"; Splendor without a veil, i.e. you just can't not see the stuff. Sine occasu, from what my Latin teacher tol me, has more the sense here of something that has no parallel, no equal; so I'd go with the older, "Without Equal", at least by popular convention.Skookum1 05:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, sorry, Skookum1, I switched it before reading your note here. Your Latin teacher is incorrect, I fear. By no stretch can occasus be defined as "unequaled." My lexicon defines occasus as "sun-setting," hence, decline or diminishment. Very suitable poetics for the Pacific province. Fishhead64 19:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Without sun-setting" is suitable (sine occasu)? Reason I brought up the "equal" thing is it was the way it was taught to us, and in all the government bumpf, back in WAC days; it was the standard public translation. Who was it that came up with it in the first place anyway? (i.e. the motto itself)Skookum1 07:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suitable External Links

I see Denelson83 removed the external link for Steveston Village, which I assume is a tourism-oriented site. I have no problems with that; such a link is probably better suited for an entry on Steveston than this one. However, that begs the question what links are suitable here and which aren't? Why remove Steveston, but not the one to the Kootenay Storytelling Festival? Why an external link to UBC, but not Simon Fraser University or the University of Victoria? For that matter, why a link to an educational institution as opposed to any other public institution? Why not a link to the provincial government website?

For what it's worth, less is probably more. The "big picture" sites ought to be here, but most of the external links are better suited for entries on more specific BC-related topics.

I don't propose to be the arbiter, so I'll leave it as-is, but people ought to consider the criteria when they add or remove external links. Fluit 21:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archaeology of BC page/section?

Tried searching for the Xa:ytem Rock and the Keatley Creek sites, which I guess I'll have to write up since they're not in Wiki yet; it's not as if the main BC page needs an archaeology section, (maybe Archaeological and Heritage Sites in British Columbia would be a good name) but this seems to be the place to field the idea (suggestion: "we" do a Project British Columbia like Wiki's Project Alaska etc). The reason I "want" the archaeological articles to exist is I'm also working on the Indigenous Peoples of North America project and there's an archaeological sites page within that, and there's no BC locations in it, even though Xa:ytem and Keatley and the new one on the Stave River are among the oldest on the continent; there's also the underwater archaeology concerning the old Ice Age-era shoreline etc. Skookum1 16:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for WikiProject British Columbia

I've been working with the Indigenous Peoples of North America Wikiproject and also WikiProject Vancouver, and have come across WikiProject Alaska and many others.

Obviously there's a lot of coordination required on all the different BC-related articles people are generating, and some fill-in-the-blanks stuff ranging from missing geographic and topical items to coordinating format. There's a bit of an overlap already with the Indigenous People's Project because of the number of native languages, communities and tribal groups here, and there's articles which overlap with project pages from Alaska, Washington and in other topic areas.

Not sure how to start such an undertaking, and unable to coordinate it due to personal time constraints, but wanted to field it for further consideration and comment by other contributors.Skookum1 05:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Politics

The article is getting unwieldy, and the politics section was getting too detailed for an overview article. So following Wikipedia protocols for this sort of thing, I have branched the article by transferring some of the text to a new Politics of British Columbia article that can be free to expand without making the overview article more cumbersome than it already is. There are "Politics of...." articles for several other provinces already. I was surprised that one did not already exist for BC. Enjoy. Ground Zero | t 20:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Land District map(s)

useful historical maps, posted here for resource: http://www.cayoosh.net/british_columbia_1896.png which I'm going to use in various articles, and also because boundary descriptions of things like electoral districts, municipalities and RDs use the LD boundaries and they're not on another map in any useful fashion. Have to think about where I got this (online) before I can add it to a page, because of citability and GFDL ad all that.Skookum1 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

whoops that jpg shrinkage/fuzz was too much; here's some (larger) files in PNG format, including zoom-ins on Vancouver Island, SW BC (incl Okanagan and Thompson), and the Yale Land District (because of its subdivisions: Yale, Kamloops, Nicola and Okanagan). The Land Districts shown need an actual article and separate articles/maps, as also Regional Districts.

These are all fair use or public domain or whatever is appropriate; I doubt if Rand McNally still holds copyright on this; I'll check with them, though. Skookum1 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demographics data issues (again)

There have been other versions of the following data/concept, and all of them have various failings; a previous variant, either here or on the Vancouver page, broke down East Asian ethnicities but lumped all others in colour-based groups, for example. The note from Trikkel on the removal of the following sequence of numbers mentioned that they don't compute from the stats reference listed:

  • White - 71.28%
  • Asian - 14.33%
  • Indian - 5.65%
  • Black - 1.11%
  • Hispanic - 0.83%
  • Arab - 1.05%
  • Aboriginal - 5.75%

And that would be because the stats listed have cross-over material within them; including, as I recall, the "Canadian" category which many have presupposed means "white"; similarly "American" and "English" (quite a few ex-Americans I know in Vancouver are black, y'see, and likewise with English expats of all flavours; and many "coloured" Canadians I know would put "Canadian" on their census form instead of, for example, saying "Japanese" when they're fourth-generation). There's also mixed-blood couples and families out the ying-yang; someone who says "English" might also be something else at the same time (Anglo-Chinese, for example, which is fairly common; or Eurasian white-Chinese/Japanese anyway). I'm not sure what happened to the Persians in the stats above; maybe merged into "Indian" which also would seem to include Pakistanis (and shouldn't; which is why "South Asian" exists as a term; and why "Asian" in the list above should clearly be "East Asian"). "Aboriginal" above here must include non-status and Metis/halfbreed, since as I recall the status aboriginals in BC number in the 1.5-2.5% range.

Demographic breakdowns are inherently political to start with and fraught with risk of bias; I myself don't like "white" as a term and find it offensive; I note that a user who inserted the other breakdown I mentioned is a younger Norwegian-Canadian (as am I, half anyway) and had previously inserted a breakdown of European ethnicities, I think on the Vancouver page if not here, which also got removed. He is not a "bad IP" I think, and may be the same individual as here because of the formatting style used; he's just a rookie and grappling with issues of identity and culture in this increasingly "multicultural" society (where European cultures/identities are not recognized as distinct unless you've got on traditional outfits and are dancing a clog or something; and there has been no room for a "white Canadian" culture in the p-c stew, which has created a sense of alienation that will eventually come around, hopefully not in a bad way as it's fully capable of doing. I think it's important for Wiki's account of BC to reflect the ethnic and cultural diversity here appropriately, and that means coping with the particularly diverse nature of both individual backgrounds (after three generations here, it's very unlikely that someone is of only one ethnicity/culture; after four or five gvenerations, it's also increasingly unlikely they are of only one racial background. And many people will cite "Canadian" as their ethnicity and nothing else, no matter what colour/race they are; I remember when multiculturalism was introduced (I was in my early teens) and people tried to sort out which kind of hyphenated Canadian they were; and many, of single or multiple backgrounds, would testily dissociate themselves from their familiy heritage and pronounce (often in a "foreign" accent) that they were Canadian and only Canadian. So the Stats Can tables have "Canadian" as their largest group; this can't be assumed to be white, OK?Skookum1 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To try to address some of the concerns raised, I've taken a direct lift from the Statistics Canada data. See what you think. I believe that when we are talking demographics, we should also include some of the other information, such as age, language, etc. The question is how to do that without bulking up the section too much. Sunray 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "direct lift" from StatsCan is inherently flawed and (to me) inherently biased; and again there are people who are of mixed ancestry, or who might just say "Canadian" for ethnicity who are, "actually" Chinese or another "visible" ethnicity. Also "visible minorities" is a misnomer in British Columbia, where "audible minorities" have long been part of the social equation and continue to be; e.g. new Eastern European immigrants, who unlike their predecessors a half century ago are maintaining their cultures and group identity and are a defineable element in the city's cultural makeup; although non-white politicians and culture mavens insist on lumping them in with the old mixed stock (British, Ukrainian, Scandinavian, German, Italian, mixed or otherwise) as "European", "white" or "Caucasian". I could live with a combined table, i.e. including the "visible" minorities with the "other" breakdown of European ethnic groups (recently added then deleted from either this page or Vancouver); but I don't think the visible minorities should get pride of place over non-visible ethnicities (recently immigrated or long-standing), and I also don't think that the assumption is that "European/Caucasian/white" is one group and that to treat it so is inherently POV. I agree that the age/language breakdowns are important - probably more important - than jigging around ethnic delineations; and the age thing in BC is particularly important because of the heavy retirement population and (AFAIK) low birth rate, i.e. the famous "greying" population, so very much evident in Victoria and the Okanagan retirement ghettos, but not there alone.
I never did get back to a discussion of this kind of thing on Talk:Vancouver but I guess it's time to revisit it. And all this is another reason why I think we need the WikiProject British Columbia thing to go forward, so we can work out all this stuff; and if anything come up with a better account of our province than currently exists in any form....Skookum1 21:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why I have been going through many of the places in Canadian geographical articles and changing the "racial" information over to "ethnic origin" stats. I believe that it is less fraught with political danger, and much less likely to be a football kicked around by someone trying to forward some sort of race-focused agenda. The data that StatsCan produces in this category, such as [2] is entirely self-reported, and allows for multiple origins. I agree that it is relevant to distinguish between those who have a specific cultural identity and those who have integrated completely into a general "Canadian" self-description, but if someone continues to feel defined by his/her familial origins, let 'em! This also allows for distinctions in Montreal, for instance, between Haitians and various African ethnicities, or in BC between Japanese and Chinese, both of whose "lumped" stats ("Black", "Asian") are really pretty useless. Now, I'll acknowledge that the results I've been producing aren't always formatted properly, but that's just because I'm a goof when it comes to understanding Wikipedia, not because I'm wrong!AshleyMorton 03:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I pointed out on AshleyMorton talk page, he is absolutely correct. the demographic section should probably parallel the Canada one: first discussion of concentrationns of population (Greater Vancouver Regional District, the rest of the lower mainland, Vancouver Island, British Columbia Interior, etc.). Then some numbers on ethic origins (main ones, aboriginal population, visible minorities). The age issue also needs to be addressed as Skookum1 pointed out, maybe with a simple comparison of the % of seniors in BC vs Canada. Unlike Sunray, I am not too concerned yet about bulking it up too much. If the section gets too big, it can be split off into its own article. Luigizanasi 05:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about the Persians that live in B.C. and mostly in the Greater Vancouver area. I can't believe that is not listed considering that they have a strong community base, especially around Lonsdale. Bestghuran 11:01, 18, November 2006 (UTC)

Now that's more like it (demographics)

A much more sensible list, and it avoids that misleading "white" or "European" category, and also doens't ape a certain StatsCan table (the visible minorities one, I think) which distinguishes different kinds of East Asian, but nobody else (if that's not political, I don't know what is, i.e. favoritism towards the most currently influential/powerful group). If I'm not mistaken though the European ethnicity respondents are gauged from some "multiple responses" (someone who says Norwegian might also have said Italian?'; unfortunately StatsCan didn't think it important to see how many specifically Norwegian-Italians there were, or Hungarian-French Canadians either); or is that from a different source than the table I'm thinking of? Did want to comment, since I don't have time to do it just now, that the links for "Scottish", "German" etc shouldn't go to Scottish people and German people but to Scottish-Canadian and German-Canadian.Skookum1 13:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Here are the two concerns I have about the table I inserted:
  • It makes no distinction between multiple reponses and single responses. Now, that's because Stats Canada has not distinguished between "Chinese-Haitian" (a person whose ancestors CLEARLY came from two separate places) and "Japanese-Canadian" (a person whose ancestors may have all been from Japan). StatsCan treats both of these groups as "multiple responses", and puts one tally in the "multiple response" column for Chinese, Haitian, Japanese and Canadian. Then someone comes along and simply answers "Japanese" - that person's response gives a tally in the "single response" column for Japanese. This creates quite a bit of muddling. Honestly, on this issue, I think that including BOTH single and multiple response tallies is the best strategy (as I have done). If you happen to be from an ethnicity that habitually hyphenates into "Xian-Canadian", you would be under-represented if we only used single responses. I think that the current version gives a more valuable analysis of the origins and community identities of the population, rather than a narrowly-defined genetic analysis.
  • Terminology - "North American Indian" is a term I have parrotted exactly from the StatsCan document, and I believe that it should not be eliminated entirely, because it is their data we're using. However, it (along with "East Indian" and possibly others) is a term that could possibly benefit from a parenthetical explanation or a footnote.
With regard to Scottish people vs. Scottish-Canadian, there is simply no available link for some of the "...-Canadian" hyphenated identities (Welsh-Canadian does not exist, for example) so, for consistency, I decided to use the more globally-focused articles. I really don't care, though -- clearly, both are valid in one light or another -- so dig in if you want to change over. AshleyMorton 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highways

Do we really need a lengthy Fodor's-type description of the highways and byways of British Columbia? We have List of British Columbia provincial highways - perhaps that could be expanded and retitled British Columbia highways. Even the well-paved car-crazy State of California has a briefer section - and it covers all transportation, not just the roads. Unless there is objection, I'm going to remove this detail and rewrite the section to be more brief and comprehensive. Fishhead64 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to Skookum1's commented out note on this I've edited the first paragraph. I think it would be a good idea to move the very detailed information on BC highways to another article as you suggest. Sunray 17:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV in "Shifting fortunes: BC since the 1970s"

This section is misleading and clearly biased, even when trying to assert the facts. The previous section ("A second growth spurt: The 1950s and 1960s") seems to take the reader up to the end of the 1960s, yet this section seems to deal with the 1990s (and possibly the 80s). There is no doubt economic indicators were poor in the mid to late 1990s, but the "facts" are presented in a non sequiteur fashion, inaccurately, or are simply opinion ("Arguably..."). The article incorrectly implies that the "NDP Party" (never mind the repetition!) was in power for the years 1987-1999. There is no context as to when or why "heavy industry" left B.C. I do not dispute that there were scandals or economic problems during the period that this section covers (purports to cover?), but those can be presented in a factual, NPOV tone. Agent 86 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just deleted the section entirely. The editor in question has been leaving dubious POV comments all over the place. The section really needs to start being developed, but I'm busy with another project right now. Fishhead64 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, and in the same boat with other project(s). But just to comment on here is no context as to when or why "heavy industry" left B.C. belies the inconvenient truth that there never really was any heavy industry in BC; that they were driven out by the NDP is a myth, partly fostered by the business community's own calls for the world business community to avoid the place while the NDP were in power (while at the same time bemoaning the environmental and native momvents' various calls for boycotts). All POV, for my part; but the "heavy industry" comment to me was a demonstration of how out-of-touch whomever the writer was with BC history and federal industrial policy in the West (q.v.).Skookum1 05:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)PS Fishead; it's non sequitur surely, in Agent 86's post?Reply[reply]
Yes, out of touch is perhaps right. His comment on the ICBC page was "I hate ICBC more than anything." Fishhead64 05:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is "non sequitur". I guess I wuz a bad speler, but i tri hard not to spel bad on artikles! ;-)
More seriously (or spelled more correctly), if the reference to "heavy industry" instead said "mining" or "resource industry", with some supporting references, I might have had an idea where the entry was going; however, I agree that BC has never had much of what I would consider "heavy industry". Agent 86 05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry about it - Skookum1 spelled my user name wrong, too! LOL.
Rule of thumb: As soon as someone says "NDP Party," it is reasonably safe to dismiss whatever follows. Fishhead64 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Adjustment to Demographics

I know we're trying to keep the size of this article down; I'm trying to keep down its Asian-colonialist bias, to be quite frank, which is why I combined "Chinese, Taiwanese and Hong Kong" into Chinese (and put back in Filipino and Japanese, which were pointedly and rather oddly absent, given the mention of the Koreans), and also needed to make sure the non-Asian "minorities" are also listed (it was so much easier here when we didn't think of each other as "minorities"; we were just all neighbours....sigh). There's similar issues on the Demographics of Vancouver page - lengthy discussions of Asian composition, and only a cursory, and rather wrong, account of the European/Briton population - in secon place in the sections listing, in fact, and less than half the length of the Asian section. Demographics is about a lot more than ethnic identity and visible minorities; hopefully that page will diversify its content as well as its ethnic spectrum.Skookum1 07:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19th Century/early 20th Chinese "access to equal wages"

Uh, look, I know this sounds very un-p.c. in this most apologetic of ages, but putting what you put back constitutes POV as it flies in the face of the circumstances of Chinese immigration until 1923, especially until 1907 or so; if they were willing to work for equal wages there wouldn't have been as much resentment of them, and of course it's true that they probably wouldn't have been imported as temporary workers. They were not "immigrants" in the usual sense, nor did they see themselves that way, as the return to China was always the goal (until late in the day). Historical revisionism is rife on this issue, but the reality remains: they were not denied access to equal wages; they did not want to work for equal wages, and in point of fact it was Chinese contractors/companies who did the hiring (not Onderdonk, the CPR or anyone else). But "blame it on whitey" is the modern take on this, even though it's not true. And, also point of fact, not even Britons had "civil rights"; the concept did not exist until the 1960s. DON'T impose late 20th century value judgments on a bygone age, and DON'T rewrite history to molify latter-day political campaigns. The Chinese did not work for equal wages because they were willing and competitively bid to work for 1/3 what anyone else (including Indians and other non-whites) would work for; THAT'S why they were not liked, more than for any other reason; blaming it on their being non-Caucasian is just revisionism, pure and simple.Skookum1 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, please don't impute motives to me (i.e., political correctness).
I didn't mean you have political correctness as a motive; but be aware that the content of most currently-circulated historical publications and journalistic writeups is heavy on the p.c. and IMO if that's all someone has read they're in p.c.-think even if not consciously so; it's brainwashing;revisionism. And it reminds of the First Chin Emperor's censuring of all histories before his own reign, so history could be written in his own image; this is what's been going on in BC historiography and "race journalism" like the recent Head Tax Redress coverage (which was nauseating in its falsity); Barman, Bowering and McLennan are full of opinion and evasion; I've read lots of other stuff than that Morton book, but I was struck by the details in it that I'd never seen before and which I now realize have been emendated out of the "official" versions of history as taught in university and pumped in the media; including a sympathetic discussion of why BC politicians wanted white railway workers from Scotland and Ireland instead of China (they wanted settlement colonists from their own culture, since this was, after all, a British colony and not a Chinese one...). The p.c. thing here is not meant to impute that you are an ideologue; only that you're so accustomed to thinking in those terms that it hasn't occurred to you there's another version that might be (and is) closer to the actual truth. You're a clergyman, and I respect the work you're putting in on BC history and such I do like to have friendly collaborations; but this is a hot-button issue and it shouldn't be assumed that the mainstream version has any bearing on reality; historical reality that is.Skookum1 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second, I note that you focus on the wage comment and don't discuss the total disenfranchisement of Chinese Canadians that existed in British Columbia, which is what I mean by "civil rights." This is not a matter of political correctness - it is a matter of institutional racism

which is a phrase built out of the ideology of political correctness, which you deny partaking of while committing.

, reflected also in the existence of the head tax.

Ottawa installed the head tax only reluctantly and after repeated British Columbian attempts to do it politically; the reason Ottawa instigated it was to mollify white feelings (about the low wages Chinese contractors bid on) so as to prevent another outbreak of the Gastown riots of the winter of 1885-86, which resulted from Chinese workers willingly and knowingly working for drastically less wages than the thousands of unemployed non-Chinese; pretending it was "institutional racism" (the modern cant, i.e. a totally p.c. phrase) is nonsense in the context of the times; unless you're also willing to discuss the institutional racism of the Qing Empire it's a total double standard.

You have a point about wages - the situation is murky

no it's not; it's damned clear; read Morton.

, and the reason for disparity was both the willingness of Chinese workers to work for less and the unwillingness of white employers to pay Chinese workers wages equal to that of white ones.

Really? And which white employers were those? because the white contractors (Onderdonk and MacDougall most infamously) hired Chinese contractors to engage Chinese employees; and it was the CPR's fault/collusion as a cost-cutting measure. It was a cost-cutting measure; that Chinese companies were willing to provide their own people at below market rates gets blamed on white people for accepting the bid; but there was no "unwillingness"; rather there was an unwillingness to hire OTHER workers for regular wages. And that's the crux of the argument; but blaming all white people for the collusion of contractors with Chinese contractors is the reality of the situation. Read Morton and the source material, not post-1980 rewrites of the history based in p.c. concepts of "institutional racism".

In the light of history, it is not always easy to ajudicate motive and intention. So I will revise the sentence accordingly to remove the wage comment, and highlight the head tax and disenfranchisment - with which I assume you take no issue. Fishhead64 05:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do disagree with the term disenfranchisement because they were never enfranchised; they were subjects of the Chinese Emperor and not British subjects; and in point of fact in certain constituencies in 1872 and afterwards they did vote, at least the rich ones did (Lillooet (electoral district)); and there were LOTS of rich ones, despite the myth, as on the CCNC website, that the Chinese made no money in the goldfields; that's an outright lie, but it gets repeated as if it were true. It's not. Yes, they were disbarred from voting in the new province; but they hadn't been allowed to vote in the colonial elections either; and neither were the Americans or other non-British subjects. Unless discriminating against Americans you'd also qualify as "institiutional racism".Read Morton before you make any more edits on this subject, cover to cover (In The Sea of Sterile Mountains, which gives more detail than anything else I've seen and ostensibly is written in sympathy with the Chinese; but it raises issues that are deliberately clouded and obscured in the many post-political correctness era rewrites.Skookum1 07:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Disenfranchisement

Chinese born in BC were disenfranchised. --JimWae 07:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fishhead's context was in relation to an era in which there were no Chinese wives; and being racists as they were, Chinese did not even want native wives, which all other peoples here readily accepted; it wasn't until after the head tax and associated policies that there were Chinese wives. And many Chinese still voted in some ridings (as they were the only potential funders for candidates' campaigns; You too, JimWae, should read Morton; it might open your eyes somewhat about the modern doctrines on this subject, which misrepresent the era and, to me, are also implicitly generalist-racist towrads "all whites", i.e. because Onderdonk and MacDougall and the CPR wanted Chinese employees because they were willing to work for much less pay, that somehow makes all white people guilty of forcing the Chinese to work for less; that's not the case at all; similarly with enfranchisemen - why should someone with the stated intention of returning to China, whose loyalties are not to the British Crown but to the Dragon Throne, have the right to vote in a dominion or colony of the British Empire; when, as noted, neither did any other non-British subjects......Skookum1 07:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where in your response do you address the disenfranchisement of Chinese born in Canada? -Here's a Chinese family in 1881 - a rarity because there were very few Chinese women here then [3] --JimWae 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry; I should have put "very few" rather than "none". The lack of Chinese wives in the early colony/province is one of the main themes even in Chinese write-ups; sure there were Chinese hookers, and some legitimate wives, but born-in-Canada Chinese were extremely rare until early in the 20th Century. Alexander Won Cum Yow was the first Chinese born in BC, at Port Douglas and served as a court interpreter for most of his life (he spoke three or four native languages as well as English and three or four Chinese dialects). I don't know about his father in particular, but I DO know that Ah Key, Wo Hing and other wealthy Chinese in Lillooet DID vote in the elections in that riding, as is often noted as an anomaly concerning Chinese enfranchisement; all candidates were "anti-Chinese" but they still lobbied and raised funds from these guys; who gave them money, and also voted. But I repeat my earlier statement that it should not be assumed that because someone works or lives here they had an implicit right to vote; even for whites the voting qualifications were stiff and difficult even if you were a Briton. Everyone's treating "immigration" to North America as though it were some kind of birthright for all peoples; you should ask the First Nations people what they think of that atttidue. Point of fact is that the bulk of the Chinese came in as temporary workers (including many that stayed); and to this day people on work and student and other temporary visas STILL do not vote, and should not expect to. Disenfranchisement from what? Britain itself at the time had only jsut taken the "great leap into the dark" by extending the franchise to unpropertied males 25 and older; before the 1870s you had to own property to a certain number of pounds value, and the voting age used to be higher; similar adjustments were made in BC, but even here the lower age and lowered property requirements were raised back for various reasons (as discussed in that Morton book I keep on mentioning, which YOU should read, JimWae; you might learn about other people than your own, for one thing...) before the property requirement was dropped entirely (federally earlier than provincially; I think provincially it was dropped around the same time women got the vote; which they immediately used to ban liquor with...).Skookum1 17:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Won Alexander Cumyow, born in Canada, voted before the Exclusion Act & then could not. That is disenfranchisement. What makes you thnk you know which people are "my own"? I have many interests and many book recommendations - more than a working person can find time for. I will continue to do what I do best. --JimWae 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A technicality, irrelevant to the overall discussion, but which you should be aware of: Won Alexander Cumyow was not born in Canada; he was born in the Colony of British Columbia, which was not part of Canada until he was about 10 years old. The linked article says he voted in 1890, but BC had banned Chinese voting as of the colony's entry into Confederation in 1871......Skookum1 22:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to JimWae: found some stuff on Cum Yow in Morton; will transcribe tomorrow (it's late).Skookum1 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rank: 5th of what?

Obviously including territories, but that doesn't say in the tables/infobox and it's not obvious. Just wondering how to put such a qualifier in without cluttering the infobox.Skookum1 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evergreen Line delayed

Not sure how to fit this in without being sharply political about it; on the same page of the paper that announced TransLink's approval of the Gateway Project's doubling of the Port Mann, the other article below that one stated that the Evergreen Line will be delayed for completion until 2012 (NB after the Olympics); had to do with renting only one boring machine for the Clarke Road hill instead of the two that would make it happen faster. Cutting corners and getting half-assed results is part of the history of BC - same kind of thing as when the boring machines were digging the Deas Tunnel and they offered to do Burrard Inlet as well, and the government went "nah, we'll never need it". Short-sightedness and scrimpiness are the bane of this place; same as with the double-cross over the Canada Line's cut-and-cover vs. full-bore. Anyway, I know my own style so I'd rather not add to that recent addition to Surface Public Transit re the two new Skytrain lines; but I think the delay of the Evergreen Line should be mentioned, in the same sentence (since it was on the same day, after all) as the government's dedication to doubling the freeway instead. Needless to say, the money for the latter could just as easily - and better - been spent on the Evergreen Line....Skookum1 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BC Forest Fires

I think this is quite a big deal every summer for BC's forests, especially in the southern interior regions. I recommend that we add a section under geography to mention this, i'd do it, but no real first hand information at this moment. LG-犬夜叉 07:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]