Talk:British Columbia/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Population Tables (was: Victoria's Population)

message: :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)
thread_title: Supposed Cascadia lure

message: 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)
replies: text: Be bold!  Make the change! Fishhead64 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Okanagan

message: 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)
thread_title: First Nations content?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: 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)
thread_title: Notes on History

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Geography section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Photos

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of "People from BC" is kinda lean (and strange) 

message: "  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)
thread_title: New list item cut-out

message: :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)
thread_title: Deleted political propaganda

message: 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)
thread_title:  Politics Section - Accuracy and NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Official language 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Not too shabby. I think your edit warrants removal of the POV tag. Fluit 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Issues in Politics Section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Order of sections

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title: ''Splendor Sine Occasu''

message: 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)
thread_title: Suitable External Links

message: 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)
thread_title: Archaeology of BC page/section?

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal for WikiProject British Columbia

message: 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)
thread_title: Politics

message: 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)
thread_title: Land District map(s)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Highways

message: 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)
thread_title: Adjustment to Demographics 

message: Chinese born in BC were disenfranchised. --JimWae 07:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Disenfranchisement

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rank: 5th of what? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Evergreen Line delayed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BC Forest Fires