![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This list doesn't have any specific order, sourcing and relevance to BC as a province (Why would someone want to know that Costco is a major employer?)
Maybe consider a major employer by province list page?
Removing for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.172.19 ( talk) 10:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
what about the founding date and person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello71 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
aight, I guess it's time we actually work on the shifting fortunes part about how the NDP came along and destoryed us, damn socialists, aight I guess that's POV besides I cannot write anything about the NDP without going on a huge rant. TotallyTempo 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason the French name for BC is listed in the first paragraph? I've nothing against French, or official bilingualism, but it seems odd for English language Wikipedia. I notice some (but not all) of the other provinces have this as well, but I see no logical reason for it. Bobanny 21:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the name of the province in the french version of the Canadian constitution is "la Colombie-Britannique". The federal constitution is equally authoritative in english and french, so it is proper to consider that the province has an official english and french name. It is also correct that there is no "official" language provincially, although in some instances english is mandated (i.e. in civil court proceedings). That all said, there is no harm or foul in listing the french-language name of the province in the article, especially as it is a correct legal name for the province. Agent 86 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As you can see by the redlinks there's no article for KW yet; the second should perhaps be The Washington Group as I think the Washington Marine Group is a subsidiary (they're into more things than just marine industry now, can't remember what it was that was recently announced though - I don't follow the business pages in the rags); I found this out while writing about the cross-border culture/economy/society/history of the Pacific Northwest on Talk:Pacific Northwest and was a bit surprised, given the large role he's had in BC in recent years. He's not a British Columbian, though he does live here part-time, so he shouldn't be on the List of British Columbians, but he is one of the province's most influential and gung-ho business leaders, I think one of the biggest players but I'm not sure. I'm not familiar enough with business data or business bios to know what to write up even as a stub, so I'm posting this here if someone might take an interest in it. Skookum1 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
In the same vein maybe we should have an article maybe on people notable in BC business and other fields who "did their thing here" but were never naturalized. Historically there's others: I'm thinking Mr. Hill from the Northern Pacific as well (who not incidentally was also on the board of the rival CPR; see http://www.dickshovel.com/two2.html); I'm not meaning recreational visitors like Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, who fished at Painter's Lodge regularly for years (that's probably another redlink but could use an article), although Errol Flynn's death in Port Coquitlam would seem to be of note; and Malcolm Lowry's in Maplewood of course. There were certain mining and forest industry people and companies likewise that were cross-border, including one bio I'll write up at some point on Ben E. Smith, an eye-patched NYC stock promoter who hyped the Pioneer Mine somewhat infamously back in the '20s and '30s; and a lot of major mine discoverers and other pioneers were Americans, esp. in the Kootenays. Maybe there's not enough to make the list worthwhile; it's just a thought in the wake of the Kyle Washington thing. John McCaw just occurred to me as well, although he just sold the Canucks, but he did build GM Place (I just checked that page, which is linked off the Vancouver Canucks page, but it's just a stub; is he Craig McCaw's brother or did the writer of the Vancouver Canucks article get things mixed up and created the "John" stub?...some of the list might also be film/TV industry people who work here but remain citizens elsewhere, ditto professional athletes. Skookum1 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
All discussions before November 2006 have been archived in Talk:British_Columbia/Archive_1. Mkdw talk 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Once I get my computer back, (sometime this week) I will tackle shifting fortunes and trun it into an awesome part of this article, hopefully I'll be able to do up to the 2001 election when our fortunes finally turned around. TotallyTempo 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry my computer graphics card is stuck in an endless loop which keeps reoccuring unless I use software rendering, dell now says they want the computer back to fix whatever they messed up. TotallyTempo 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Aight I'm starting, I got part of an afternoon to kill...
TotallyTempo
20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want to register my disagreement that we have to slavishly conform to Stats Can definitions. "East Indian" is a dated term that the Man should stop using because it only derives its meaning from its relative position to Europe and North America, like Orientalism generally (and it discriminates against Central Indians!). I believe "South Asian" has more currency. "Indo-Canadian" doesn't really work either because it's inconsistent with all the other categories, which don't use the -Canadian, probably because it refers to identity/current residence rather than ethnic origin. That said, I guess we're stuck with Stats Can thinking in lieu of consensus amongst editors on this and I'm too lazy to try and get a consensus. Also note that there isn't even an article East Indian on Wikipedia. Bobanny 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Whatev if we are using statistics by stats can than we should use the format they use. Besides if I were to say Indian especially in a population survey people would think I was referring to American Indians. It's just a way of distingushing one Indian from another.
I've requested a peer review for this article. If you're interested in giving some feedback, click here. Thanks, Bobanny 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
ok guys I wrote the shifting fortunes section, keep in mind I am only 1 man, I did try hard to be NPOV and add in all the scandals not just the NDP ones. If you have any comments or critiques please feel free to post on my talk page and of course edit the article....keep in mind I did try to be objective as I could and I realize the article may focus a little too much on politics as opposed to the economy. I threw in something about the declining economy under the NDP, because it was true as for the 70's and 80's economy I had a difficult time finding economic statistics for BC on the internet. I was born in 1987 so I wasn't around to observe how it felt on the ground as it were. In conclusion: please do not kill me, it was a good faith edit. TotallyTempo 23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure that's possible, I do have a POV, I am not a robot after all, please, have at it. TotallyTempo 03:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you caught me really I'm a run away robot... not really....amour de cosmos basically set the precedent fo BC politics, being mentally insane and all, anyways I think the section is looking good, maybe I'll add something about icbc on monday...thanks a lot for the help so far TotallyTempo 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't know how I missed what's in there at present, unless it's part of edits since the last time I looked; the Solidarity Crisis was in 1983 and associated with the Bennett II government, not with the Zalm. I was going to add/rewrite bits of this section later today or tomorrow (trying to be NPOV, but still filling in the blanks on "things unsaid" in the version here, which is largely a pastiche of what you'd get if you interviewed a PacPress/CanWest drone about the past; lots of important stuff from the Bennett years; account of why Barrett government fell is largely that put forward by the Socredish rewriters of our history; boiling Miniwac down to the Coquihalla and Expo '86 is definitely part of the man's political CV, but the general air of fiasco and scandal which hung over his government is given a free ride here (as in the retrospectives on his career by PacPress columnists, who try to paint him as an "elder statesman" now); throughout Socred II years all the emergent troubles were blamed on three years of NDP rule in the distant past (that I wish I had time to dig out all the cites on because it's citable) as if the Premier's own father hadn't engaged in (as mentioned before), keeping two sets of books; it was Miniwac's policies which generated the term "voodoo economics", later applied to restraint-era programs of the Reagan and Thatcher governments....all this is one reason I've avoided taking too much part in this section; too easy to get POV.... Skookum1 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Further to previous discussions, I'm also eyeing the existing sections here with certain date shifts; Shifting Fortunes should begin in 1972, as there's a case to be made that the WAC Bennett era is its own period, with the War and immediate post-War ('til '52) very different; as also with earlier discussions I think with Bobanny that the proper periods are more like, (those two can be combined, though),,,/52, 1945/52-1972, and so on; harder to cut up the 20th Century as the slashes indicate but certain eras are very clear, e.g., as well as WAC's years). More on this later. Skookum1 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean that we should (or could) separate history and politics, but the opposite. What I imagine is this article be structured to be more balanced between standard themes (Economy, history, infrastructure, demographics, politics, etc, or whatever the appropriate themes would be) and that they would ideally end up being roughly equal. The history section would be more general than it is shaping up to be (and is starting to dominate the page), with some of the historical content incorporated into other sections. "Infrastructure," for example, would include a fair bit of history in explaining the infrastructure, from trains to WAC Bennett's legacy, up into maybe the current Olympic-building and related follies. The idea here is that history is used to improve the other sections, rather than trying to cram in everthing imporatant that happened before Expo (or whatever the cut-off date is where history supposedly stops and the present begins). The History of British Columbia article would be the more in depth chronological treatment, and periodized accordingly. That would be much more detailed than here, but still would be general in that it would cover not only politics, but also immigration/demographics, cultural stuff, economic development, and of course trains and Doukhobors. The Politics of British Columbia article, which I just looked at for the first time, would essentially be another history article devoted to government history, including all the scandals, freaky politicians, and the like. I don't believe the "politics in BC" material that isn't historical needs much space to do the job (i.e., all the boring but obligatory, "BC has X number of federal political ridings, so many MLA's" and that kind of thing), and that article is just a stub now anyway so it's pretty open to be whatever editors think it should be. Anyway, I'd be happy to step back from the initial output and help out by editing other people's stuff, including trimming down your long entries, Skookum. Discussion and debate that comes out of that process should give us an idea of what new articles need to be created. Personally, I find it easier to either write material or edit material than try and do both at once, since it's a different mental process. And, like TotallyTempo, I'm looking at this as a way to learn more about BC history, and it seems you're the most qualified to try and lay down the general outline. Bobanny 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Oh yeah, I'm gonna stick a list of history books on BC and Vancouver that I own on my user page that I can use to do fact-checking for editors who don't happen to be at the library, or live in Onterrible, and can't find something reliable online or in what they've got. I've accumulated much more than I've read, and imagine I'll end up selling many of them when the chips are down, so it'd be nice to make more use of these books while I still have them. Bobanny 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Possibly a map would be better, and more for the geography and history pages than here; occurred to me because of the need for separate Boundary Country, Omineca Country, Chilcotin District, Lillooet Country, North Coast etc articles which aren't reflected in RD and other govenrmental organization. Going to be some overlap and some degree of hierarchy; what got me thinking about it was what the terms Southern Interior, Central Interior, Northern Interior, North-central Interior and so on; and also spun off a read through the history section about where New Caledonia was, at various times, what the difference between the Columbia District and the Oregon Country was, and where the unboundaried appellations like New Georgia and New Hanover were; I'm planning another map for the lengedary countries of the mythical Northwest Passage - Anian, Bergi, Cibola, which are shown north of or in Cibola's case inland from Nova Albion. Anyway, just notice that a map of BC's historical - not as defined by legislation (though very early ridings and land districts reflect the landscape to a great degree, though on a macro scale) but by how people talked about different places; the "Country" or "District" thing in most cases is interchangeable; I gave it to Boundary Country but might prefer Omineca District for that one, even though Omineca Country is also used; Lillooet Country means something slighly different from Lillooet District, and there are other such examples. There's also things like the way the Similkameen is now considered part of the Okanagan, likewise the Boundary as part of the Kootenay, while the Tulameen is part of the Similkameen, the Coldwater country part of the Nicola Country, and so on. I've got a good PD map of the original Land Districts, as they were in 1896 anyway, btw; if there's an article there now I'll add it. Skookum1 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) PS what prompted this also is that there's no Slocan article yet, which I noticed a few pages before launching this post; there's probably other cases of important name-localities not having articles yet. Skookum1 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
ok don't be alarmed I'm not planning on totally getting rid of the history or anything (after I was the guy that started this historical domination of the page to begin with) I'm thinking about how to karate chop this section and simply copy paste it onto the history of British Columbia page. I'm just trying to figure out how to shorten it. TotallyTempo 07:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
According to CBC.ca, the "Big One" may strike in the next week. Apparently, the cause could be a major slippage in the subduction zone, where the Juan de Fuca plate meets the North American Plate, that will result in a quake similar to the quake that occurred off the coast of Sumatra on Dec 26, 2004.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/02/bc-quake.html
WoodenFeet 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I heard that too, I'm prayin for you guys out there. If it is it's buhbye richmond —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyTempo ( talk • contribs)
Hey guys by the way on a flight from ottawa to BC I actually set next to a geologist who worked for the Canadian Geological survey. He said that this particular story was way overblown. He said basically we cannot predict earthquakes at all, and what we do know we know from historical records. The range for the lower mainland is a big one every 300-700 years, the last one was sometime in the 1700's, so we're jjust coming into the window of opportunity now. He also said that the only reason it seemed more likely now was that there were a larger number of smaller earthquakes in recent weeks. Basically he approximated that the chances increased from 1 in a thousand to 1 in 900 or something along those lines. I don't think any of this should be included in the article, I'm just passing it along for y'all. cheers. TotallyTempo 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of reverting back and forth between government and regime, how's about duking it out here?
Regime, in this context is nothing more than a synonym. There's no inherent negative connotation with the word itself. When I talk about my fitness regime, it doesn't mean I'm some sort of fascist. The sentence in question is favourable to Campbell, so any negative association readers might have would surely be neutralized anyway. On the other side of the coin, "regime" doesn't mean anything different here than government, and the two are interchangeable. Bobanny 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd had reservations about using the term, and can still see the possibility of a negative connotation. However, given what has been covered here, I'm now inclined to think it's OK. --- Ckatz chat spy 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)"A regime (occasionally spelled "régime", particularly in older texts) is the set of rules, both formal (for example, a Constitution) and informal (Common law, cultural or social norms, etc.) that regulate the operation of government and its interactions with the economy and society. For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of the Constitution in the 1780s. The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term."
I'm all for not having French put there, over all the other languages that "de facto" might be properly there (name one, any one), but I'm uncertain as to whether BC has an OFFICIAL language. I know it's the official language of the Legislature, but I don't think there's been any legislation actually making it the official language of the province. This was debated in colonial times, when both Scots Gaelic and Chinook Jargon were put forward as secondary official languages in the colonial assembly, but that was never gone forward with. But, again, I'm pretty sure there's no OFFICIAL language legislation, not at the provincial level anyway; other than House rules, which are perhaps citable via the Office of the Speaker? Skookum1 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) OfficialLang =
In the caption for the picture of the last spike being driven into the CPR there is an error. The caption says Lord Strathcona while it was actually Sir Donald Smith.
The section on recreational marijuana use (which I'm not convinced belongs in the article in the first place) is taken word-for-word from marijuanaaddictiontreatment.com. What is the best way to deal with this? GaryColemanFan 19:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete it. TotallyTempo 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it copyrighted by these people? Anyway, don't think it can be so big a problem that it needs such a huge writeup on the page? Unless anyone posts any objections to this soon I'll cut it down or delete it. Post below if think it should be cut down or deleted... ANHL 07:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone has just cut down the section 'recreational cannabis' to about 1/4 size. However, lots of places have drug problems much worse than this but it isn't mentioned; sign below if you think the section should be deleted. ANHL 12:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I vote for deletion unless its actual significance can be shown. Either that, or add sections for alcohol use in British Columbia, etc. By the way, how can anybody know that BC produces 40% of the weed used in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.162.168 ( talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
this can all only ever be estimates - for so long as the marijuana industry remains below ground, that is. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The map of Canada showing BC colored in red appears to be wrong. It seems to me that some parts of Alaska are falsely colored red too. 87.122.35.115 ( talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the map and can see or observe no parts of alaska that are colored red. The panhandle is clearly visible, however just because the panhandle is visible doesn't mean that there are no problems with it, but keep in mind that the map is large scale it's possible that some small inaccuracies did occur. However the overall point of the map is to give a general detail of where BC is, if someone is looking for the exact demarcation of the panhandle they may do better to look at the Alaska Panhandle page, rather then this map. So as such I feel no change is necessary. TotallyTempo (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyTempo ( talk • contribs)
I grew up in BC and I'm happy to say that but a lot of this article -- especially the recreation/parks sections -- seems like it was written by the BC Gov's tourism department. Is it just me, or does reading this just seem like an advertisement for tourism in BC?
Maybe they had an intern rewrite it as a summer project...?
I'd recommend revising parts of this so that the words 'much enjoyed' aren't used in every sentence.
My writing isn't the best but I thought someone should point this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.32.221 ( talk) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Also related to BC parks: BC Parks doesn't run all of the parks, that work is contracted out to private companies. For example, Gibson's Pass Resorts Inc runs E. C. Manning Provincial Park. 128.189.148.160 ( talk) 09:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
what does BC grow? What are some natural resources? Or business?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.107.138 ( talk) 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I cannot give any actual statistics :( (don't have time to look up) but I know there are large areas of dairy, especially on Vancouver Island, and a lot of the mainland is devoted to logging. . . those would be the two biggest, mainly the logging, feel free to write something about it conningcris 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Can someone tell my why my other message keeps messing up? was first all in a box on one line, then I manually spaced it out, now two lines are in box and other 2 aren't...conningcris 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
juniors thre first presedent in canda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.137.12 ( talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check this please. The ethnic grouping "Danish" appears twice in the table (end of the first collumn and the penultimate in the second collumn). Hovering over the links it seems that the first collumn entry links to "Danish people" and the second collumn links to "Croatian people". --
Xania
talk
23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver is in the Pacific Southwest not the Pacific Northwest. That's why they refer to the region around Vancouver as the "LOWER" Mainland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 ( talk) 04:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
TotallyTempo ( talk) 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you see where I'm going with that; not just the sesquicentennial of the Mainland Colony but also the bicentennial of Simon Fraser's fabled/now-fashionably-derided trip to the sea, or almost the sea, down the Fraser. 215 years since Mackenzie, 220 years since nay naumber of events in 1788, and 230 from Cook. I remember that there was controversy somewhat about WAC's fun and games with the various centennials (I lived through three provincial ones - 1858, 1866 and 1871, plus the federal 1867 one; my pareents were volunteer event organizers throughout, but that's another story again. Perhaps this isn't the place to mention Simon Fraser's journey, or perhaps it is - I was stunned to see barely an explanation of him on the SFU page - "named after Simon Fraser, an explorer" and that was it; I added some of course, but incredible the "just some guy" attitude for a university that took the name with all the window-dressing of exploring knowledge and the arts....215 isnt' a year anyone celebrates, or 220 or 230, another 20 years and it's the 300th anniversary of Cook's visit. 1808 does represent the British toehold on teh coastal mainland in terms of diplomatic history, though, the ace-in-the-hole on the boundary question, or meant to be (as also was Ft Langley when it came along. it's also 195 years from when canny Scots-Canadian traders used good ol' US free enterprise and bought out the competition (also Scots-Canadian, though Ameican-owned/chartered); not that we got anywhere with that....to get back to my main point; would it be too wordy to include mention of Simon Fraser's 200th and its significance in terms of the evolution of the territorial claim that became British Columbia 50 years later? Certainly the older-era historians - OWM ("Old White Men", Begg, Howay Bancroft et al.) certainly seem to think so; but maybe this is better on the BC 150 page..... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an error regarding the date: July 4, 2008. In fact, I was there and the celebration mentionned in the 150th anniversary section found in the article about BC took place on August 4, 2008, on the same day of the Symphony Splash and the concert was followed by fireworks.
Sorry, I'm not used to Wikipedia editing...and everything related to it.
I hope someone will change the infos for the real ones!
Thanks
( 66.203.210.49 ( talk) 06:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
Hi! I'm completely new. I work at a gas station and it drives us all up the wall that nobody seems to know that gas stations are required to make everybody pre-pay for their gas in BC. Everybody hates doing it and nobody seems to know how to do it or maybe they pretend they don't because they hope we're going to just suddenly start cheating and starting the pump for them or something. ANYWAY in my web travels I came across a travel wiki and I created an entire section in the BC article on paying for gas. I think it's appropriate for there but I think those who already know and love this article should be the ones to at least mention it in the travel section perhaps on here and I think IT MUST BE MENTIONED! PLEASE??
this is the link to the section i made on wikitravel http://wikitravel.org/en/British_Columbia#Getting_Gas
this is a link to the PDF that www.worksafeBC.com has about it http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/health_and_safety/by_topic/assets/pdf/workingalone.pdf
here is an article on it dated a couple of weeks before http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=bdda2985-a14f-4a4a-9a44-c960d4737d50
StressedGasStationKid ( talk) 07:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
There I hope that'll do. StressedGasStationKid ( talk) 05:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I amended the bit about Social Credit being right-wing; they differ strongly from the Neo-Liberals in their application and support for nationalization and are similarly "left" in certain other policy areas; the Coalition should be mentioned here, I'd say, and it's in respect to that that this caught my eye:
Well, I'm not sure, I may have inserted that a long time ago; but really if the "de-facto successor" (which is a rather POV claim, admittedly) is the Liberals, then their de-facto predecessor, enemy camp though it was at the time, was the Coalition; in fact, today's Liberals more resemble the Coalition than they do the Socreds (especially given Social Credit's occasional "socialistic" lapses - talk about a heresy huh? but that's what nationalization is, plus WAC's various deals with the big unions...). Also the opening bit about the BC Liberals being unrelated to the federal party is no longer true; there's been an official rapprochement and BC Liberal members and MLAs were active in the Martin campaign (boy, were they ever); cant' say they are now the same on policy/ideology, though; in that regard they remain different despite the veneer of "party solidary" between the federal and provincial parteis that's supposedly in place now. I also obviously added a brief (and it is brief) rundown of the legacy of scandal in BC, which it is unconscionable to leave out of this section as it's such a hallmark of the province's political culture; as is polarization come to think of it, but I'll have to think about how to word that. I've done my best to be NPOV about naming scandals, giving "equal time" or close to it, though the specifics of more recent scandals like that of John Les and Richard Van Loen (sp?) I didn't have on hand; I could have named Christy Clark and whatisname that was Finance Minister who resigned in the wake of the Ledge Raids but was trying to conserve space. The historical scandals that could be mentioned by name here are the Texada Island Scandal, invovling Amor de Cosmos, the Cottonwood Scandal, involving Chief Justice Begbie and the Military Lands Scandal of 1859-60 involving nearly every military official in the colony at the time (including the Rear-Admiral). None have articles yet but will at some point; didnt' want to put redlinks on this page. If anyone thinks this is "too much to add to this page" I beg to differ; it's barely enough..... Skookum1 ( talk) 18:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The Islands - Vancouver Island and the BC Gulf Islands
Ash River The Islands - Vancouver Island and the BC Gulf Islands
Ash River Burman River Campbell River Chemainus River Cluxewe River Cowichan River Englishman River Gold River Gordon River Harris River Heber River Little Qualicum River Mahatta River Megin River Nanaimo River Nimpkish River Nitinat River Oyster River Puntledge River Qualicum River Quatse River Quinsam River Salmon River San Juan River Sooke River Stamp/Sproat/Somass River White River Woss River —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.186 ( talk) 23:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As canada is the 2ed bigest county British columbia his the most land speace which means that British There are 14 designations of parks and protected areas in the province that reflects the different administration and creation of these areas in a modern context. There are 141 ecological Reserves, 35 provincial marine parks, 7 Provincial Heritage Sites, 6 National Historic Sites, 4 National Parks and 3 National Park Reserves. 12.5% (114,000 km²) of British Columbia is currently considered protected under one of the 14 different designations that include —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.186 ( talk) 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a lil more information on MT Biking in the article. BC has had a MAJOR impact on the mt bike community. Stuff that they started has spread waaaay across the world. They pretty much started the mt bike freeride community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.5.69 ( talk) 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please add to, edit modify the new Topics on British Columbia to reflect content about British Columbia for the portal, wikiproject, the article etc. SriMesh | talk 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I added - duplicated - material on the Johnston/Harcourt storyline without realizing it was in the '90s section; which points up the reality that the decade-markers don't work, the changes in government are where the sections should be; 1952 to 1971 or 1972, then 1990-91, then when Campbell got in;; the "1970s and 1980s" divisions don't work well.... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I reversed this edit which changed figures for 1851, 1861 and 1871. My edit comment was longer than the space avilable - main thrust is that the table should indicate in this period, and up even until 1911 and later, waht the proportion of FN peoples is. 1851 was an HBC "census" and there was another in 1841 or thereabouts. All but 300 or so in either of those years were First Nations....in 1861 there were still 60,000 or so FNs, so the figures as shown right now are wrong; are they meant to mean only colonists? In which case they're too high; and if not, they're too low (and the edit I reversed may have been an attempt to redress that). Thing is in 1864 there was the Great Smallpox Epidemic, and also by that time tens of thousands of Americans had gone back to he US to either kill each other in Dixie or mine for gold in Idaho and Colorado and Nevada. Even by World War I, some areas of BC remained majority First Nations in population (the Skeena, for one; the Chilcotin is still over 80% FN....Cassiar-Stikine-Atlin in the same range) So the Demographics section needs a major revisit; I dno't have harris' The Resettlement of British Columbia - I'll see if the Dal library has it and get one of my housemates to take it out fi it does..... Skookum1 ( talk) 19:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
A map has been placed at Spanish Empire suggesting that British Columbia was once Spanish. Whilst I realise that the Spanish made some far-fetched claims about their rights to the Americas and the Pacific coastline, the way it is depicted on this map is a little ridiculous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm conducting a new survey since the last was done 3 years ago (an editors lifetime on Wikipedia) at 2009 Vancouver Vs. Vancouver, Washington Survey. Your input would be most appreciated. Mkdw talk 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it a boring place to visit? Thinking going there but everyone tells me not to bother thats it's boring and all you see are trees,fish and bears.That doesn't interest me,so please tell me what is not boring about it please.It's free for me to stay there because of family,but I'm not into bears,whale watching,hunting,fishing or hiking-is there more to BC then this?If not I won't bother,I would rather pay for else were then have a boring trip.I'm looking for places to go shopping or museums( Dirrtypittie ( talk) 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
I grew up on this mag to the same degree as National Geographic, and I have my reservations about removing it, but it is a commercial link, seeking subscriptions, and is therefore spam:
This entire article is somewhat point of veiw and "glowing"-- 142.35.15.81 ( talk) 19:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be consistency regarding usage of BC or B.C.
Which should it be? My gut says use B.C. where you would say "Bee See" verbally, ie, if you were talking about another province you'd use the name in its place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.0.71 ( talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ya dude sweet place been there 5 times!!-- Seanwall ( talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)-- Seanwall ( talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)-- Seanwall ( talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the 'Last Spike' imagge in the 'Rapid growth and development' section is incorrectly captioned. At present I don't have time to find out who it is actually driving in the last spike, but I think this is something that needs looking in to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntarcticPenguin ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So basically we have so many scandals we cannot possibly document them all, I went to the univeristy library, it only had 2 books on British Columbian history, one of which was written in 1925. We get the shaft over here, anyways, I'll look at that article the canadian political scandals. Furthermore if you can belive it I'm taking a break from watching a movie...if that's even possible. Just so y'all know I'm not gonna be on much till back in January cause I'm going to BC. I would really enjoy learning more about British Columbia's awesome history though, ontario ain't got nothing on us. TotallyTempo 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a whole other page devoted to BC scandals? -- Rabbit 11 ( talk) 08:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
19 years living in the province, and I've never once heard of it as a synonym for "British Columbians." Anyone? The Tom 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Having heard it used is not enough for the encyclopaedia. I, for one, have never used the term, nor have I read it or heard it anywhere. (Lotuslanders, however, I have heard, and I generally take exception when I do). IIRC, "original research" does not belong in Wikipedia, so I have removed it, and I suggest it remain out unless someone can show two or more sources for its use. 24.81.98.134 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The only people I hear using "BCer" are the out-of-provincials who moved there in the last few years. I am a British Columbian plain and simple. IMO, it is not a term that any self respecting British Columbian ever uses. - Magnus
I can only recall "BCer" being used in more recent times, and more often by people recently come to British Columbia. That includes journalists. (and I agree, I hear it more from CanWest Global than either CBC or CTV) It just sounds like an outsider term. Reminds me of the term Quebecer, which I don't care for either. I don't use BCer, no one I know from BC uses it (aside from a some Ontarians and Albertans)- but then that might just be my circle of friends, associates and (of course) family. Skookum, on the other hand, is a term particular to British Columbia I do know and have heard other British Columbians use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit 11 ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This list doesn't have any specific order, sourcing and relevance to BC as a province (Why would someone want to know that Costco is a major employer?)
Maybe consider a major employer by province list page?
Removing for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.172.19 ( talk) 10:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
what about the founding date and person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello71 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
aight, I guess it's time we actually work on the shifting fortunes part about how the NDP came along and destoryed us, damn socialists, aight I guess that's POV besides I cannot write anything about the NDP without going on a huge rant. TotallyTempo 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason the French name for BC is listed in the first paragraph? I've nothing against French, or official bilingualism, but it seems odd for English language Wikipedia. I notice some (but not all) of the other provinces have this as well, but I see no logical reason for it. Bobanny 21:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the name of the province in the french version of the Canadian constitution is "la Colombie-Britannique". The federal constitution is equally authoritative in english and french, so it is proper to consider that the province has an official english and french name. It is also correct that there is no "official" language provincially, although in some instances english is mandated (i.e. in civil court proceedings). That all said, there is no harm or foul in listing the french-language name of the province in the article, especially as it is a correct legal name for the province. Agent 86 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As you can see by the redlinks there's no article for KW yet; the second should perhaps be The Washington Group as I think the Washington Marine Group is a subsidiary (they're into more things than just marine industry now, can't remember what it was that was recently announced though - I don't follow the business pages in the rags); I found this out while writing about the cross-border culture/economy/society/history of the Pacific Northwest on Talk:Pacific Northwest and was a bit surprised, given the large role he's had in BC in recent years. He's not a British Columbian, though he does live here part-time, so he shouldn't be on the List of British Columbians, but he is one of the province's most influential and gung-ho business leaders, I think one of the biggest players but I'm not sure. I'm not familiar enough with business data or business bios to know what to write up even as a stub, so I'm posting this here if someone might take an interest in it. Skookum1 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
In the same vein maybe we should have an article maybe on people notable in BC business and other fields who "did their thing here" but were never naturalized. Historically there's others: I'm thinking Mr. Hill from the Northern Pacific as well (who not incidentally was also on the board of the rival CPR; see http://www.dickshovel.com/two2.html); I'm not meaning recreational visitors like Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, who fished at Painter's Lodge regularly for years (that's probably another redlink but could use an article), although Errol Flynn's death in Port Coquitlam would seem to be of note; and Malcolm Lowry's in Maplewood of course. There were certain mining and forest industry people and companies likewise that were cross-border, including one bio I'll write up at some point on Ben E. Smith, an eye-patched NYC stock promoter who hyped the Pioneer Mine somewhat infamously back in the '20s and '30s; and a lot of major mine discoverers and other pioneers were Americans, esp. in the Kootenays. Maybe there's not enough to make the list worthwhile; it's just a thought in the wake of the Kyle Washington thing. John McCaw just occurred to me as well, although he just sold the Canucks, but he did build GM Place (I just checked that page, which is linked off the Vancouver Canucks page, but it's just a stub; is he Craig McCaw's brother or did the writer of the Vancouver Canucks article get things mixed up and created the "John" stub?...some of the list might also be film/TV industry people who work here but remain citizens elsewhere, ditto professional athletes. Skookum1 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
All discussions before November 2006 have been archived in Talk:British_Columbia/Archive_1. Mkdw talk 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Once I get my computer back, (sometime this week) I will tackle shifting fortunes and trun it into an awesome part of this article, hopefully I'll be able to do up to the 2001 election when our fortunes finally turned around. TotallyTempo 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry my computer graphics card is stuck in an endless loop which keeps reoccuring unless I use software rendering, dell now says they want the computer back to fix whatever they messed up. TotallyTempo 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Aight I'm starting, I got part of an afternoon to kill...
TotallyTempo
20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want to register my disagreement that we have to slavishly conform to Stats Can definitions. "East Indian" is a dated term that the Man should stop using because it only derives its meaning from its relative position to Europe and North America, like Orientalism generally (and it discriminates against Central Indians!). I believe "South Asian" has more currency. "Indo-Canadian" doesn't really work either because it's inconsistent with all the other categories, which don't use the -Canadian, probably because it refers to identity/current residence rather than ethnic origin. That said, I guess we're stuck with Stats Can thinking in lieu of consensus amongst editors on this and I'm too lazy to try and get a consensus. Also note that there isn't even an article East Indian on Wikipedia. Bobanny 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Whatev if we are using statistics by stats can than we should use the format they use. Besides if I were to say Indian especially in a population survey people would think I was referring to American Indians. It's just a way of distingushing one Indian from another.
I've requested a peer review for this article. If you're interested in giving some feedback, click here. Thanks, Bobanny 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
ok guys I wrote the shifting fortunes section, keep in mind I am only 1 man, I did try hard to be NPOV and add in all the scandals not just the NDP ones. If you have any comments or critiques please feel free to post on my talk page and of course edit the article....keep in mind I did try to be objective as I could and I realize the article may focus a little too much on politics as opposed to the economy. I threw in something about the declining economy under the NDP, because it was true as for the 70's and 80's economy I had a difficult time finding economic statistics for BC on the internet. I was born in 1987 so I wasn't around to observe how it felt on the ground as it were. In conclusion: please do not kill me, it was a good faith edit. TotallyTempo 23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure that's possible, I do have a POV, I am not a robot after all, please, have at it. TotallyTempo 03:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you caught me really I'm a run away robot... not really....amour de cosmos basically set the precedent fo BC politics, being mentally insane and all, anyways I think the section is looking good, maybe I'll add something about icbc on monday...thanks a lot for the help so far TotallyTempo 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't know how I missed what's in there at present, unless it's part of edits since the last time I looked; the Solidarity Crisis was in 1983 and associated with the Bennett II government, not with the Zalm. I was going to add/rewrite bits of this section later today or tomorrow (trying to be NPOV, but still filling in the blanks on "things unsaid" in the version here, which is largely a pastiche of what you'd get if you interviewed a PacPress/CanWest drone about the past; lots of important stuff from the Bennett years; account of why Barrett government fell is largely that put forward by the Socredish rewriters of our history; boiling Miniwac down to the Coquihalla and Expo '86 is definitely part of the man's political CV, but the general air of fiasco and scandal which hung over his government is given a free ride here (as in the retrospectives on his career by PacPress columnists, who try to paint him as an "elder statesman" now); throughout Socred II years all the emergent troubles were blamed on three years of NDP rule in the distant past (that I wish I had time to dig out all the cites on because it's citable) as if the Premier's own father hadn't engaged in (as mentioned before), keeping two sets of books; it was Miniwac's policies which generated the term "voodoo economics", later applied to restraint-era programs of the Reagan and Thatcher governments....all this is one reason I've avoided taking too much part in this section; too easy to get POV.... Skookum1 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Further to previous discussions, I'm also eyeing the existing sections here with certain date shifts; Shifting Fortunes should begin in 1972, as there's a case to be made that the WAC Bennett era is its own period, with the War and immediate post-War ('til '52) very different; as also with earlier discussions I think with Bobanny that the proper periods are more like, (those two can be combined, though),,,/52, 1945/52-1972, and so on; harder to cut up the 20th Century as the slashes indicate but certain eras are very clear, e.g., as well as WAC's years). More on this later. Skookum1 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean that we should (or could) separate history and politics, but the opposite. What I imagine is this article be structured to be more balanced between standard themes (Economy, history, infrastructure, demographics, politics, etc, or whatever the appropriate themes would be) and that they would ideally end up being roughly equal. The history section would be more general than it is shaping up to be (and is starting to dominate the page), with some of the historical content incorporated into other sections. "Infrastructure," for example, would include a fair bit of history in explaining the infrastructure, from trains to WAC Bennett's legacy, up into maybe the current Olympic-building and related follies. The idea here is that history is used to improve the other sections, rather than trying to cram in everthing imporatant that happened before Expo (or whatever the cut-off date is where history supposedly stops and the present begins). The History of British Columbia article would be the more in depth chronological treatment, and periodized accordingly. That would be much more detailed than here, but still would be general in that it would cover not only politics, but also immigration/demographics, cultural stuff, economic development, and of course trains and Doukhobors. The Politics of British Columbia article, which I just looked at for the first time, would essentially be another history article devoted to government history, including all the scandals, freaky politicians, and the like. I don't believe the "politics in BC" material that isn't historical needs much space to do the job (i.e., all the boring but obligatory, "BC has X number of federal political ridings, so many MLA's" and that kind of thing), and that article is just a stub now anyway so it's pretty open to be whatever editors think it should be. Anyway, I'd be happy to step back from the initial output and help out by editing other people's stuff, including trimming down your long entries, Skookum. Discussion and debate that comes out of that process should give us an idea of what new articles need to be created. Personally, I find it easier to either write material or edit material than try and do both at once, since it's a different mental process. And, like TotallyTempo, I'm looking at this as a way to learn more about BC history, and it seems you're the most qualified to try and lay down the general outline. Bobanny 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Oh yeah, I'm gonna stick a list of history books on BC and Vancouver that I own on my user page that I can use to do fact-checking for editors who don't happen to be at the library, or live in Onterrible, and can't find something reliable online or in what they've got. I've accumulated much more than I've read, and imagine I'll end up selling many of them when the chips are down, so it'd be nice to make more use of these books while I still have them. Bobanny 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Possibly a map would be better, and more for the geography and history pages than here; occurred to me because of the need for separate Boundary Country, Omineca Country, Chilcotin District, Lillooet Country, North Coast etc articles which aren't reflected in RD and other govenrmental organization. Going to be some overlap and some degree of hierarchy; what got me thinking about it was what the terms Southern Interior, Central Interior, Northern Interior, North-central Interior and so on; and also spun off a read through the history section about where New Caledonia was, at various times, what the difference between the Columbia District and the Oregon Country was, and where the unboundaried appellations like New Georgia and New Hanover were; I'm planning another map for the lengedary countries of the mythical Northwest Passage - Anian, Bergi, Cibola, which are shown north of or in Cibola's case inland from Nova Albion. Anyway, just notice that a map of BC's historical - not as defined by legislation (though very early ridings and land districts reflect the landscape to a great degree, though on a macro scale) but by how people talked about different places; the "Country" or "District" thing in most cases is interchangeable; I gave it to Boundary Country but might prefer Omineca District for that one, even though Omineca Country is also used; Lillooet Country means something slighly different from Lillooet District, and there are other such examples. There's also things like the way the Similkameen is now considered part of the Okanagan, likewise the Boundary as part of the Kootenay, while the Tulameen is part of the Similkameen, the Coldwater country part of the Nicola Country, and so on. I've got a good PD map of the original Land Districts, as they were in 1896 anyway, btw; if there's an article there now I'll add it. Skookum1 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) PS what prompted this also is that there's no Slocan article yet, which I noticed a few pages before launching this post; there's probably other cases of important name-localities not having articles yet. Skookum1 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
ok don't be alarmed I'm not planning on totally getting rid of the history or anything (after I was the guy that started this historical domination of the page to begin with) I'm thinking about how to karate chop this section and simply copy paste it onto the history of British Columbia page. I'm just trying to figure out how to shorten it. TotallyTempo 07:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
According to CBC.ca, the "Big One" may strike in the next week. Apparently, the cause could be a major slippage in the subduction zone, where the Juan de Fuca plate meets the North American Plate, that will result in a quake similar to the quake that occurred off the coast of Sumatra on Dec 26, 2004.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/02/bc-quake.html
WoodenFeet 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I heard that too, I'm prayin for you guys out there. If it is it's buhbye richmond —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyTempo ( talk • contribs)
Hey guys by the way on a flight from ottawa to BC I actually set next to a geologist who worked for the Canadian Geological survey. He said that this particular story was way overblown. He said basically we cannot predict earthquakes at all, and what we do know we know from historical records. The range for the lower mainland is a big one every 300-700 years, the last one was sometime in the 1700's, so we're jjust coming into the window of opportunity now. He also said that the only reason it seemed more likely now was that there were a larger number of smaller earthquakes in recent weeks. Basically he approximated that the chances increased from 1 in a thousand to 1 in 900 or something along those lines. I don't think any of this should be included in the article, I'm just passing it along for y'all. cheers. TotallyTempo 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of reverting back and forth between government and regime, how's about duking it out here?
Regime, in this context is nothing more than a synonym. There's no inherent negative connotation with the word itself. When I talk about my fitness regime, it doesn't mean I'm some sort of fascist. The sentence in question is favourable to Campbell, so any negative association readers might have would surely be neutralized anyway. On the other side of the coin, "regime" doesn't mean anything different here than government, and the two are interchangeable. Bobanny 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd had reservations about using the term, and can still see the possibility of a negative connotation. However, given what has been covered here, I'm now inclined to think it's OK. --- Ckatz chat spy 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)"A regime (occasionally spelled "régime", particularly in older texts) is the set of rules, both formal (for example, a Constitution) and informal (Common law, cultural or social norms, etc.) that regulate the operation of government and its interactions with the economy and society. For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of the Constitution in the 1780s. The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term."
I'm all for not having French put there, over all the other languages that "de facto" might be properly there (name one, any one), but I'm uncertain as to whether BC has an OFFICIAL language. I know it's the official language of the Legislature, but I don't think there's been any legislation actually making it the official language of the province. This was debated in colonial times, when both Scots Gaelic and Chinook Jargon were put forward as secondary official languages in the colonial assembly, but that was never gone forward with. But, again, I'm pretty sure there's no OFFICIAL language legislation, not at the provincial level anyway; other than House rules, which are perhaps citable via the Office of the Speaker? Skookum1 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) OfficialLang =
In the caption for the picture of the last spike being driven into the CPR there is an error. The caption says Lord Strathcona while it was actually Sir Donald Smith.
The section on recreational marijuana use (which I'm not convinced belongs in the article in the first place) is taken word-for-word from marijuanaaddictiontreatment.com. What is the best way to deal with this? GaryColemanFan 19:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete it. TotallyTempo 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it copyrighted by these people? Anyway, don't think it can be so big a problem that it needs such a huge writeup on the page? Unless anyone posts any objections to this soon I'll cut it down or delete it. Post below if think it should be cut down or deleted... ANHL 07:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone has just cut down the section 'recreational cannabis' to about 1/4 size. However, lots of places have drug problems much worse than this but it isn't mentioned; sign below if you think the section should be deleted. ANHL 12:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I vote for deletion unless its actual significance can be shown. Either that, or add sections for alcohol use in British Columbia, etc. By the way, how can anybody know that BC produces 40% of the weed used in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.162.168 ( talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
this can all only ever be estimates - for so long as the marijuana industry remains below ground, that is. Skookum1 ( talk) 12:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The map of Canada showing BC colored in red appears to be wrong. It seems to me that some parts of Alaska are falsely colored red too. 87.122.35.115 ( talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the map and can see or observe no parts of alaska that are colored red. The panhandle is clearly visible, however just because the panhandle is visible doesn't mean that there are no problems with it, but keep in mind that the map is large scale it's possible that some small inaccuracies did occur. However the overall point of the map is to give a general detail of where BC is, if someone is looking for the exact demarcation of the panhandle they may do better to look at the Alaska Panhandle page, rather then this map. So as such I feel no change is necessary. TotallyTempo (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyTempo ( talk • contribs)
I grew up in BC and I'm happy to say that but a lot of this article -- especially the recreation/parks sections -- seems like it was written by the BC Gov's tourism department. Is it just me, or does reading this just seem like an advertisement for tourism in BC?
Maybe they had an intern rewrite it as a summer project...?
I'd recommend revising parts of this so that the words 'much enjoyed' aren't used in every sentence.
My writing isn't the best but I thought someone should point this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.32.221 ( talk) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Also related to BC parks: BC Parks doesn't run all of the parks, that work is contracted out to private companies. For example, Gibson's Pass Resorts Inc runs E. C. Manning Provincial Park. 128.189.148.160 ( talk) 09:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
what does BC grow? What are some natural resources? Or business?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.107.138 ( talk) 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I cannot give any actual statistics :( (don't have time to look up) but I know there are large areas of dairy, especially on Vancouver Island, and a lot of the mainland is devoted to logging. . . those would be the two biggest, mainly the logging, feel free to write something about it conningcris 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Can someone tell my why my other message keeps messing up? was first all in a box on one line, then I manually spaced it out, now two lines are in box and other 2 aren't...conningcris 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
juniors thre first presedent in canda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.137.12 ( talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check this please. The ethnic grouping "Danish" appears twice in the table (end of the first collumn and the penultimate in the second collumn). Hovering over the links it seems that the first collumn entry links to "Danish people" and the second collumn links to "Croatian people". --
Xania
talk
23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver is in the Pacific Southwest not the Pacific Northwest. That's why they refer to the region around Vancouver as the "LOWER" Mainland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 ( talk) 04:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
TotallyTempo ( talk) 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you see where I'm going with that; not just the sesquicentennial of the Mainland Colony but also the bicentennial of Simon Fraser's fabled/now-fashionably-derided trip to the sea, or almost the sea, down the Fraser. 215 years since Mackenzie, 220 years since nay naumber of events in 1788, and 230 from Cook. I remember that there was controversy somewhat about WAC's fun and games with the various centennials (I lived through three provincial ones - 1858, 1866 and 1871, plus the federal 1867 one; my pareents were volunteer event organizers throughout, but that's another story again. Perhaps this isn't the place to mention Simon Fraser's journey, or perhaps it is - I was stunned to see barely an explanation of him on the SFU page - "named after Simon Fraser, an explorer" and that was it; I added some of course, but incredible the "just some guy" attitude for a university that took the name with all the window-dressing of exploring knowledge and the arts....215 isnt' a year anyone celebrates, or 220 or 230, another 20 years and it's the 300th anniversary of Cook's visit. 1808 does represent the British toehold on teh coastal mainland in terms of diplomatic history, though, the ace-in-the-hole on the boundary question, or meant to be (as also was Ft Langley when it came along. it's also 195 years from when canny Scots-Canadian traders used good ol' US free enterprise and bought out the competition (also Scots-Canadian, though Ameican-owned/chartered); not that we got anywhere with that....to get back to my main point; would it be too wordy to include mention of Simon Fraser's 200th and its significance in terms of the evolution of the territorial claim that became British Columbia 50 years later? Certainly the older-era historians - OWM ("Old White Men", Begg, Howay Bancroft et al.) certainly seem to think so; but maybe this is better on the BC 150 page..... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an error regarding the date: July 4, 2008. In fact, I was there and the celebration mentionned in the 150th anniversary section found in the article about BC took place on August 4, 2008, on the same day of the Symphony Splash and the concert was followed by fireworks.
Sorry, I'm not used to Wikipedia editing...and everything related to it.
I hope someone will change the infos for the real ones!
Thanks
( 66.203.210.49 ( talk) 06:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
Hi! I'm completely new. I work at a gas station and it drives us all up the wall that nobody seems to know that gas stations are required to make everybody pre-pay for their gas in BC. Everybody hates doing it and nobody seems to know how to do it or maybe they pretend they don't because they hope we're going to just suddenly start cheating and starting the pump for them or something. ANYWAY in my web travels I came across a travel wiki and I created an entire section in the BC article on paying for gas. I think it's appropriate for there but I think those who already know and love this article should be the ones to at least mention it in the travel section perhaps on here and I think IT MUST BE MENTIONED! PLEASE??
this is the link to the section i made on wikitravel http://wikitravel.org/en/British_Columbia#Getting_Gas
this is a link to the PDF that www.worksafeBC.com has about it http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/health_and_safety/by_topic/assets/pdf/workingalone.pdf
here is an article on it dated a couple of weeks before http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=bdda2985-a14f-4a4a-9a44-c960d4737d50
StressedGasStationKid ( talk) 07:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
There I hope that'll do. StressedGasStationKid ( talk) 05:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I amended the bit about Social Credit being right-wing; they differ strongly from the Neo-Liberals in their application and support for nationalization and are similarly "left" in certain other policy areas; the Coalition should be mentioned here, I'd say, and it's in respect to that that this caught my eye:
Well, I'm not sure, I may have inserted that a long time ago; but really if the "de-facto successor" (which is a rather POV claim, admittedly) is the Liberals, then their de-facto predecessor, enemy camp though it was at the time, was the Coalition; in fact, today's Liberals more resemble the Coalition than they do the Socreds (especially given Social Credit's occasional "socialistic" lapses - talk about a heresy huh? but that's what nationalization is, plus WAC's various deals with the big unions...). Also the opening bit about the BC Liberals being unrelated to the federal party is no longer true; there's been an official rapprochement and BC Liberal members and MLAs were active in the Martin campaign (boy, were they ever); cant' say they are now the same on policy/ideology, though; in that regard they remain different despite the veneer of "party solidary" between the federal and provincial parteis that's supposedly in place now. I also obviously added a brief (and it is brief) rundown of the legacy of scandal in BC, which it is unconscionable to leave out of this section as it's such a hallmark of the province's political culture; as is polarization come to think of it, but I'll have to think about how to word that. I've done my best to be NPOV about naming scandals, giving "equal time" or close to it, though the specifics of more recent scandals like that of John Les and Richard Van Loen (sp?) I didn't have on hand; I could have named Christy Clark and whatisname that was Finance Minister who resigned in the wake of the Ledge Raids but was trying to conserve space. The historical scandals that could be mentioned by name here are the Texada Island Scandal, invovling Amor de Cosmos, the Cottonwood Scandal, involving Chief Justice Begbie and the Military Lands Scandal of 1859-60 involving nearly every military official in the colony at the time (including the Rear-Admiral). None have articles yet but will at some point; didnt' want to put redlinks on this page. If anyone thinks this is "too much to add to this page" I beg to differ; it's barely enough..... Skookum1 ( talk) 18:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The Islands - Vancouver Island and the BC Gulf Islands
Ash River The Islands - Vancouver Island and the BC Gulf Islands
Ash River Burman River Campbell River Chemainus River Cluxewe River Cowichan River Englishman River Gold River Gordon River Harris River Heber River Little Qualicum River Mahatta River Megin River Nanaimo River Nimpkish River Nitinat River Oyster River Puntledge River Qualicum River Quatse River Quinsam River Salmon River San Juan River Sooke River Stamp/Sproat/Somass River White River Woss River —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.186 ( talk) 23:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As canada is the 2ed bigest county British columbia his the most land speace which means that British There are 14 designations of parks and protected areas in the province that reflects the different administration and creation of these areas in a modern context. There are 141 ecological Reserves, 35 provincial marine parks, 7 Provincial Heritage Sites, 6 National Historic Sites, 4 National Parks and 3 National Park Reserves. 12.5% (114,000 km²) of British Columbia is currently considered protected under one of the 14 different designations that include —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.155.186 ( talk) 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a lil more information on MT Biking in the article. BC has had a MAJOR impact on the mt bike community. Stuff that they started has spread waaaay across the world. They pretty much started the mt bike freeride community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.5.69 ( talk) 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please add to, edit modify the new Topics on British Columbia to reflect content about British Columbia for the portal, wikiproject, the article etc. SriMesh | talk 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I added - duplicated - material on the Johnston/Harcourt storyline without realizing it was in the '90s section; which points up the reality that the decade-markers don't work, the changes in government are where the sections should be; 1952 to 1971 or 1972, then 1990-91, then when Campbell got in;; the "1970s and 1980s" divisions don't work well.... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I reversed this edit which changed figures for 1851, 1861 and 1871. My edit comment was longer than the space avilable - main thrust is that the table should indicate in this period, and up even until 1911 and later, waht the proportion of FN peoples is. 1851 was an HBC "census" and there was another in 1841 or thereabouts. All but 300 or so in either of those years were First Nations....in 1861 there were still 60,000 or so FNs, so the figures as shown right now are wrong; are they meant to mean only colonists? In which case they're too high; and if not, they're too low (and the edit I reversed may have been an attempt to redress that). Thing is in 1864 there was the Great Smallpox Epidemic, and also by that time tens of thousands of Americans had gone back to he US to either kill each other in Dixie or mine for gold in Idaho and Colorado and Nevada. Even by World War I, some areas of BC remained majority First Nations in population (the Skeena, for one; the Chilcotin is still over 80% FN....Cassiar-Stikine-Atlin in the same range) So the Demographics section needs a major revisit; I dno't have harris' The Resettlement of British Columbia - I'll see if the Dal library has it and get one of my housemates to take it out fi it does..... Skookum1 ( talk) 19:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
A map has been placed at Spanish Empire suggesting that British Columbia was once Spanish. Whilst I realise that the Spanish made some far-fetched claims about their rights to the Americas and the Pacific coastline, the way it is depicted on this map is a little ridiculous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm conducting a new survey since the last was done 3 years ago (an editors lifetime on Wikipedia) at 2009 Vancouver Vs. Vancouver, Washington Survey. Your input would be most appreciated. Mkdw talk 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it a boring place to visit? Thinking going there but everyone tells me not to bother thats it's boring and all you see are trees,fish and bears.That doesn't interest me,so please tell me what is not boring about it please.It's free for me to stay there because of family,but I'm not into bears,whale watching,hunting,fishing or hiking-is there more to BC then this?If not I won't bother,I would rather pay for else were then have a boring trip.I'm looking for places to go shopping or museums( Dirrtypittie ( talk) 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
I grew up on this mag to the same degree as National Geographic, and I have my reservations about removing it, but it is a commercial link, seeking subscriptions, and is therefore spam:
This entire article is somewhat point of veiw and "glowing"-- 142.35.15.81 ( talk) 19:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be consistency regarding usage of BC or B.C.
Which should it be? My gut says use B.C. where you would say "Bee See" verbally, ie, if you were talking about another province you'd use the name in its place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.0.71 ( talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Ya dude sweet place been there 5 times!!-- Seanwall ( talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)-- Seanwall ( talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)-- Seanwall ( talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the 'Last Spike' imagge in the 'Rapid growth and development' section is incorrectly captioned. At present I don't have time to find out who it is actually driving in the last spike, but I think this is something that needs looking in to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntarcticPenguin ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So basically we have so many scandals we cannot possibly document them all, I went to the univeristy library, it only had 2 books on British Columbian history, one of which was written in 1925. We get the shaft over here, anyways, I'll look at that article the canadian political scandals. Furthermore if you can belive it I'm taking a break from watching a movie...if that's even possible. Just so y'all know I'm not gonna be on much till back in January cause I'm going to BC. I would really enjoy learning more about British Columbia's awesome history though, ontario ain't got nothing on us. TotallyTempo 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a whole other page devoted to BC scandals? -- Rabbit 11 ( talk) 08:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
19 years living in the province, and I've never once heard of it as a synonym for "British Columbians." Anyone? The Tom 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Having heard it used is not enough for the encyclopaedia. I, for one, have never used the term, nor have I read it or heard it anywhere. (Lotuslanders, however, I have heard, and I generally take exception when I do). IIRC, "original research" does not belong in Wikipedia, so I have removed it, and I suggest it remain out unless someone can show two or more sources for its use. 24.81.98.134 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The only people I hear using "BCer" are the out-of-provincials who moved there in the last few years. I am a British Columbian plain and simple. IMO, it is not a term that any self respecting British Columbian ever uses. - Magnus
I can only recall "BCer" being used in more recent times, and more often by people recently come to British Columbia. That includes journalists. (and I agree, I hear it more from CanWest Global than either CBC or CTV) It just sounds like an outsider term. Reminds me of the term Quebecer, which I don't care for either. I don't use BCer, no one I know from BC uses it (aside from a some Ontarians and Albertans)- but then that might just be my circle of friends, associates and (of course) family. Skookum, on the other hand, is a term particular to British Columbia I do know and have heard other British Columbians use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit 11 ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)