![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stumbled across this. Good start, but a stub in need of structuring and expanding, so I marked it as such.
Added a sentence on administration by the NCC, since it was not clear what sort of park Gatineau is. But someone could expand on this as well. Martinp 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have fact tagged this whole article as it has no references at all. It has been tagged with a header for some time but that hasn't motivated anyone to add references.
Hopefully the fact tags will help editors identify where the refs are needed. For anyone who doesn't think it is important for Wikipedia to be scrupulously referenced, I suggest that you read this CBC article.
Please do not remove the fact tags unless you are replacing them with references. At least they will alert readers that the information in this article is unreliable. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just about all these "fact tags" could be referenced from the official Gatineau Park website ( http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16297-16299-10170&lang=1)
I'm not an editor of this page and am not going to cite the article, but it is pretty much all there for someone with time to spend.. 99.240.198.86 ( talk) 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
User 192.197.82.203 has added the following statement to the article which I have moved to here:
I have a couple of problems with this paragraph. First that isn't a reference. A reference complies with Wikipedia:Citing sources in that it isn't a narrative about a publication but either cites a website where it can be found or an actual paper publication by title, author, date, publisher and ISBN or catalog number. The key thing here is verifiability. A reader has to be able to find the reference and check it. As Jimbo Wales says at Wikipedia:VER#Burden_of_evidence:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
–Jimmy Wales [1]
Secondly the source (sort of) cited, if it can be taken at face value, would only support the first part of the claim that the park was intended as a monument to those who died in WWII. It wouldn't support the controversial claims about the NCC and closed door management. That claim definitely requires a source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for suggesting more rigorous references. I believe the references I have added will meet with your rigorous requirements. (JPM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.153 ( talk) 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
That was a typo, which has been corrected. 2006 was the year in question (JPM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.203 ( talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
References
User:99.149.84.135: thanks for tagging this as NPOV. I read through the changes introduced by User:70.51.188.11 and came to the same conclusion. This is actually a continuation of the section above. As far as I can tell the refs cited seem to support some of the basic facts, but not the opinions expressed here, although not all refs are easy to find. More to the point the article is now very biased, unbalanced and seems to be pushing a political reform agenda of some kind. I would recommend that either the sections added by User:70.51.188.11 be amended to reflect a much better balance of the issues or else the inserted text be removed as WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but I would like to hear from other editors watching this page. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That you may disagree with these facts, and the references backing them up, in no way invalidates them.
Your comments seem either ideologically motivated, or self-interested. You should perhaps declare whether your beliefs motivate your challenges, whether you, your family or friends have private inholdings in the park.
As for me, I am defending the public interest and the environment by telling the truth about Gatineau Park. A truth long concealed by the NCC and the self-interested few.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 19:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There you go again, making broad generalizations without backing up your point. I am not in a conflict of interest—either financial, legal, autobiographical, self-promoting, or promoting on behalf of clients, or campaigning (I am an individual in pursuit of the facts), nor do I have a close relationship with anyone who could benefit from what I have written.
Perhaps you could ask the NCC to incorporate the other side of the story, or do it yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm always one for working together.
I have made several additions, in an attempt to place the NCC's views, claims, positions in the text, with footnotes. I have not expanded, but included statements that accurately reflect their position(s).
The NCC's position is now present with respect to what it says on private lands (references to pages of 3 master plans); it position(s) on ownership of lac La Pêche parklands has been included (with references); as well as its support for Bill S-210. I believe this may address some of your concerns (trouble is with the NCC: what it says and does are different--it says everywhere that acquiring inholdings and preventing development are management priorities. Yet, as we speak, a new house is going up in the park, illegal lakebed constructions are going ahead, etc.).
I am open to your further suggestions.
As for the truth: I don't claim to possess it, only to pursue it. I don't claim to hold the truth about the park, only strongly held opinions based on hard facts. And I don't work for the GPPC (it's a convenient label--all volunteer, no funding, no web site, no employees, no ties to any organizations, etc.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some POVs from titles, cleaned up punctuation and streamlined language and references. In my view, the NCC positions are presented, even when they are obviously contradictory, and I have tried to remove any tendentious language.
What I have placed in this entry represents a very accurate picture of the situation. I don't for a minute believe anyone will find it unsalvageable, since it presents truthful, referenced information which is found nowhere else in one location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 05:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that sources may be available through the use of OPL library resources on the NCC. Canada Newstand for one. I have to agree that there is a large amount of controversy surrounding the NCC's activities and the Park. It would be inappropriate to remove it so I think that tagging is the appropriate measure I think. I would have to agree that the article has content that is negative to the NCC. But, the NCC is notoriously difficult to get direct information on any project or plan and it may be difficult to present their side here. I recall that from when they wanted to build a highway interchange at the north end of Island Park. This is also made more difficult under the current Harper government which wants to control information. I think that you could almost argue that the NCC is an agency hostile to the local public and that is a long-standing complaint of Ottawans. Anyway, I will start looking for newspaper sources through Canada Newstand, which does have the Ottawa Citizen going back before 1980. I am sure it will not be hard to find people critical of the NCC for the record. To the IP user, I would suggest creating a Wikipedia account when you are working on an article extensively. I welcome coverage of controversy, and energy on an article is good too. Alaney2k ( talk) 15:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added several new references, some of them electronic where available, and removed weasel words, replacing them with what I feel to be more balanced terminology. I have also removed the tags, but left the top notices in place pending your approval, or suggested changes.
Much of the information is available on the parliamentary web site. Other documents at the national library. Will provide any information required, if I have it.
I hope this meets with your approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Good changes. Yes you have attributed statements correctly. I have also added many electronic references to facilitate verifiability.
Well done. The entry is much stronger as a result of your efforts and advice. Will continue adding any electronic references I can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added any available NCC reactions or comments throughout, and I believe this may meet with your requirements for greater balance. Also have added other weblinks. So, I believe we have resolved most of the issues you have raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You are very rigorous and a tough taskmaster. Thanks to your advice, the story of Gatineau Park is much more accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The political aspects of the article, including all the new photos, are starting to dwarf the park descriptive aspects of the article. It seems like the political controversies will only add to the article over time, while the descriptive aspects probably will not get a lot larger. I am wondering if it isn't time to split the article into this one (as a park-descriptive article) and a new one, perhaps entitled Politics of Gatineau Park, which would, of course be linked from this article and vice-versa. I'd like to hear from everyone watching this article, if you have an opinion. - Ahunt ( talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at the Banff article, or any encyclopedic article on US or other Canadian parks. You will see a discussion of the several issues that may be controversial. Moreover, for example, any credible article on Jasper would be incomplete without a discussion of the mysteriously disappearing water, which may be caused by poor park/hotel management.
There are only 2 links to the Politics article, not counting the political controversy link. I have respected most of your changes. And since I wrote most of the article, and completely overhauled the very poorly written and factually incorrect sites and activities section, you should respect my changes. Besides, much of what you are trying to remove you had previously approved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong, my dear Fralembert: Ahunt split the article and achieved what he felt to be a "balance." So we now have an article with a "snapshot" of previously hidden park history (Alissa Apostle in her 1997 Queen's University Thesis says the park's history was erased and re-written--and my research pretty well confirms her conclusion.) as well as a brief discussion of sites and activities. Moreover, there was almost nothing on the "wildlife, the flora, the forest, the geology, the hydrology and the climate" before I edited the article. So why did you not make a point of it when the article was very poor/sketchy? Besides, you are free to add such material, should you be so inclined.
And where else, in the whole world, will you find such a clear and condensed overview of the park's history as well as threats facing it? The point of my contribution is to help wikipedia visitors understand what is "really" going on in Gatineau Park.Somehting you won't find on the NCC's Web site, although it spends millions of taxpayer dollars on "communicating" with the public. Stoneacres
Okay, I will agree to your reworked paragraph, only correcting a faulty noun-verb agreement. However, I insist on keeping the hat note. That way it is clear from the start that there is an issue with the way the park is administered. If you wish, you might remove one of the other links--maybe the controversy one. Stoneacres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.216.199 ( talk) 19:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Stoneacres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.216.199 ( talk) 23:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahuntand I had a consensus on the hatnote. So it is placed at the beginning.-- Stoneacres ( talk) 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Those guidelines are prescriptive, not restrictive. Besides the editing guidelines advocate being bold, and allow up to ten links per article. I have inserted a hatnote.
My feeling is Ahunt and M.Nelson are trying to suppress facts. Might they have friends/family with private park inholdings, an ideological bias, friends/family who work for the NCC,etc.? Seems many of their changes are purely whimsical. Perhaps they are power tripping. Their timing seems rather interesting. Gatineau Park is on everyone's mind, and viewer figures confirm many people are checking this page out.
Their tactics are reminiscent of Disruption 101 and trying to control information the public has access to.
They keep threatening and warning me. I've heard the NCC and park landowners are past masters at that. I know Inclusionists would, and have already, defended this article as worthwhile and necessary. And that was before I added all the requested references, and more.-- Stoneacres ( talk) 01:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You are arbitrarily changing edits that make the text more streamlined and user friendly. Please say if you have a conflict of interest, since you appear to be trying to protect the status quo, NCC and inholders. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 13:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
From the way discussion is progressing at WP:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park, it seems likely that Politics of Gatineau Park will be deleted, and this article will be expanded (within reason) to cover the controversies deemed notable in the Politics article. Since the editing of these articles in itself is controversial, all major changes should be determined by consensus on the talk page before adding to the article.
Today the park is administered by the National Capital Commission, a body that has attracted considerable public controversy for its policies on park boundaries, [1] private land ownership [2] and allowing construction in the park. [3]
Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate for public access and use of the park and oppose private development in it. [4]
Well that's a start. I have reverted your move of the picture, since you did not act on consensus, as you had said should be done. As well, I think the picture was fine where it was. However, I will respect your edit of the caption.-- Stoneacres ( talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I undid Ahunt's revision, because the article mentions the GPPC's activities, and more importantly, because the page of the web site http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html provites a referenced article illustrating the point made in the Wiki sentence. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 02:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You have not demonstrated the unreliability of http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html. In fact you are expressing a personal view that it is not reliable. It provides sources and documents you will find nowhere else. That is why it should be included as a reference.
Besides, you mention the organization in the article and do not provide any reference to it. So I suggest you either delete the unsupported reference to the GPPC and NWPL, or add a refererence to http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html.
You are suppressing reliable and verifiable information in support of a Wikipedia article. This should be denounced as a violation of the letter and spirit of encylopedic knowledge.l-- Stoneacres ( talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You are misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. You are displaying bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. You interpret them to suit your POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.
In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahunt, you are misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. Ahunt you are showing bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. You Ahunt interpret them to suit your POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.
In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on you Ahunt.
And there you go again playing the victimology card: my comment wasn't a personal attack: it is a description of a fact: you interpret the rules to suit your ideological agenda, you are suppressing reliable and verifiable sources, and are displaying bad faith as a result.
Your shame is held up for the entire world to see. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay I thought it would be helpful to summarize where were are on this issue:
So far then there is no consensus to include a link, but I am interested to hear User:Stoneacres response to 66.173.140.100's idea when he gets unblocked. I am also interested to hear from other editors watching this page to gain a broader consensus. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for jumping the doghouse fence by editing this page without signing in. For the record, I am user Stoneacres editing without signing in.
I concur with [User:Racepacket|Racepacket]]'s suggestion that the sentence mentioning the GPPC should provide a reference to the GPPC web site: http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html
As for not including any GPPC material on Wikipedia, Ahunt and MNelson already should know that I agreed not to add any park content on Wikipedia, before running it by them for agreement/modification on the discussion page. So, that's already agreed. Adding a reference, as far as I'm concerned, is not adding content -- only helping to support and illustrate it.
Moreover, Ahunt, MNelson and I agreed that two more paragraphs needed to be added to the Gatineau Park article: one on boundaries; one on land management. And I'd add that a third, brief, paragraph should mention that legislation has been introduced recently in both houses to address the problems related to boundaries and land management. In fact, that paragraph might be not much longer than the preceding sentence, just to let readers know something is going on and to wrap up the two paragraphs nicely.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to submit those paragraphs to the discussion page for approval, since I was dealing with other matters.
Begging your indulgence for breaking the doghouse curfew by editing without signing in, I remain, your, Stoneacres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.234.69 ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest Gatineau Park article might be edited as follows (3 last paragraphs before Sites), to comply with a past agreement. The first paragraph is a slightly tweeked version of the current one. The second paragraph ties in the legislation issue in tight summary. And the last paragraph is exactly the current one. I believe it flows nicely and fits with criteria set out above by Ahunt and MNelson.
-- Stoneacres ( talk) 04:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As for User:Racepacket's proposal, I agree that one ref. to the GPPC website should be included, and agree to not add any reference, content or links after that without specific agreement from wikipedia editors on this talk page. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 19:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the references you placed are in the right place. Below, is the text with "controversy" replacing "criticism". As well I have added references as suggested.
-- Stoneacres ( talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the new sentence could read:"Its policies on park boundaries, land management and ownership, as well as on residential construction in the park, have been the subject of controversy.
I have included the change in the proposal above. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 21:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't dare make the change without a definite okay from you or MNelson. And if it's okay with you, I'd like to remove the redundant "King donated his 600-acre..." Because it's said twice in the sites section.
I never found any reference anywhere about the Ryan Tower. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have editted the redundancies in the sites section. When I rewrote it last year, to give it a little more oomph, I had let my focus on the park's politics make me overlook such a stylistic blunder. Begging the indulgence of the committee, I remain, sincerely, -- Stoneacres ( talk) 17:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
On rereading the sections and proposals above, I believe the latest proposed text takes into account MNelson's edits, and Ahunts approval. Therefore, I will edit the main page with the text as follows:
Today, the National Capital Commission manages the park, along with all federal lands and buildings in Canada's National Capital Region. Its policies on park boundaries, [1] land management and ownership, [18] as well as on residential construction in the park, have been the subject of controversy. [19]
To address these issues, several private members’ bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Commons since 2005. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] The federal government also tabled its own Gatineau Park legislation in June 2009. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] None of the bills tabled so far has been enacted into law.
Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate greater public access to the park while opposing residential development inside it. [31] -- Stoneacres ( talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Mnelson: I agree that a string of reference numbers may be distracting to readers; however, since we are venturing into new territory, I believe it safer to leave them.
As it stands, I wish to thank all editors. Though we have had our slugfests, so to speak, I believe the article as is offers an excellent, accurate primer to anyone wishing to find out what's going on in Gatineau Park. Our several clashes, I believe, have given birth to something important. And I believe we have achieved the balance, in relation to sites and activities, which Ahunt had rightly said was missing (when the article was sort of an on-going journal of issues related to the park).
In juxtaposition with the GPPC web site, I believe the public now has excellent tools to assess fairly what ails Gatineau Park.
Note: with regard to the dimension of the park: we say 361 sq. km, AND 363 sq. km. According to my best information, the latter figure is correct...
Much thanks.
-- Stoneacres ( talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that footnote 29 is wrong. It talks about beaches, whereas it is supposed to illustrate NCC policy on motorboats. Any help/advice would be appreciated. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 14:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
References
I have written a text presenting a balanced view of the Gatineau Park trail trash issue. Are you okay with reinstating the deleted photo? Stoneacres ( talk) 01:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I take your point; however, some encyclopedia's do cover recent events. That's why they're updated every few years. As for being short lived, I have found glass/garbage on five park trails, which suggests the problem has been going on for some time (the contractor only rehabilitates a few trails a year). Stoneacres ( talk) 03:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I hope the following will help Ahunt understand why I undid his change. And why you can start a sentence/paragraph with a conjunction.
This is what R.W. Burchfield has to say about this use of and: at the beginning of a sentence:
“There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues.” (The New Fowler's Modern English Usage,edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996).
And here’s an example of its use from one of the masterpieces of English literature, the King James Bible: Genesis 1:3:
“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. “9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
“14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
“20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
“24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
“26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
And I would add there are countless references supporting use of conjunctions at the beginning of paragraphs/sentences, and dispelling its prohibition as myth … And arbitrary practice. Stoneacres ( talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone find something to back up the fact that at 90,000 acres, Gatineau Park is the biggest urban park in the world ? The next closest is Table Mountain National Park in South Africa at 60,000 acres. UrbanNerd ( talk) 03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stumbled across this. Good start, but a stub in need of structuring and expanding, so I marked it as such.
Added a sentence on administration by the NCC, since it was not clear what sort of park Gatineau is. But someone could expand on this as well. Martinp 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have fact tagged this whole article as it has no references at all. It has been tagged with a header for some time but that hasn't motivated anyone to add references.
Hopefully the fact tags will help editors identify where the refs are needed. For anyone who doesn't think it is important for Wikipedia to be scrupulously referenced, I suggest that you read this CBC article.
Please do not remove the fact tags unless you are replacing them with references. At least they will alert readers that the information in this article is unreliable. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just about all these "fact tags" could be referenced from the official Gatineau Park website ( http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16297-16299-10170&lang=1)
I'm not an editor of this page and am not going to cite the article, but it is pretty much all there for someone with time to spend.. 99.240.198.86 ( talk) 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
User 192.197.82.203 has added the following statement to the article which I have moved to here:
I have a couple of problems with this paragraph. First that isn't a reference. A reference complies with Wikipedia:Citing sources in that it isn't a narrative about a publication but either cites a website where it can be found or an actual paper publication by title, author, date, publisher and ISBN or catalog number. The key thing here is verifiability. A reader has to be able to find the reference and check it. As Jimbo Wales says at Wikipedia:VER#Burden_of_evidence:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
–Jimmy Wales [1]
Secondly the source (sort of) cited, if it can be taken at face value, would only support the first part of the claim that the park was intended as a monument to those who died in WWII. It wouldn't support the controversial claims about the NCC and closed door management. That claim definitely requires a source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for suggesting more rigorous references. I believe the references I have added will meet with your rigorous requirements. (JPM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.153 ( talk) 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
That was a typo, which has been corrected. 2006 was the year in question (JPM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.203 ( talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
References
User:99.149.84.135: thanks for tagging this as NPOV. I read through the changes introduced by User:70.51.188.11 and came to the same conclusion. This is actually a continuation of the section above. As far as I can tell the refs cited seem to support some of the basic facts, but not the opinions expressed here, although not all refs are easy to find. More to the point the article is now very biased, unbalanced and seems to be pushing a political reform agenda of some kind. I would recommend that either the sections added by User:70.51.188.11 be amended to reflect a much better balance of the issues or else the inserted text be removed as WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but I would like to hear from other editors watching this page. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That you may disagree with these facts, and the references backing them up, in no way invalidates them.
Your comments seem either ideologically motivated, or self-interested. You should perhaps declare whether your beliefs motivate your challenges, whether you, your family or friends have private inholdings in the park.
As for me, I am defending the public interest and the environment by telling the truth about Gatineau Park. A truth long concealed by the NCC and the self-interested few.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 19:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
There you go again, making broad generalizations without backing up your point. I am not in a conflict of interest—either financial, legal, autobiographical, self-promoting, or promoting on behalf of clients, or campaigning (I am an individual in pursuit of the facts), nor do I have a close relationship with anyone who could benefit from what I have written.
Perhaps you could ask the NCC to incorporate the other side of the story, or do it yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm always one for working together.
I have made several additions, in an attempt to place the NCC's views, claims, positions in the text, with footnotes. I have not expanded, but included statements that accurately reflect their position(s).
The NCC's position is now present with respect to what it says on private lands (references to pages of 3 master plans); it position(s) on ownership of lac La Pêche parklands has been included (with references); as well as its support for Bill S-210. I believe this may address some of your concerns (trouble is with the NCC: what it says and does are different--it says everywhere that acquiring inholdings and preventing development are management priorities. Yet, as we speak, a new house is going up in the park, illegal lakebed constructions are going ahead, etc.).
I am open to your further suggestions.
As for the truth: I don't claim to possess it, only to pursue it. I don't claim to hold the truth about the park, only strongly held opinions based on hard facts. And I don't work for the GPPC (it's a convenient label--all volunteer, no funding, no web site, no employees, no ties to any organizations, etc.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some POVs from titles, cleaned up punctuation and streamlined language and references. In my view, the NCC positions are presented, even when they are obviously contradictory, and I have tried to remove any tendentious language.
What I have placed in this entry represents a very accurate picture of the situation. I don't for a minute believe anyone will find it unsalvageable, since it presents truthful, referenced information which is found nowhere else in one location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 05:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that sources may be available through the use of OPL library resources on the NCC. Canada Newstand for one. I have to agree that there is a large amount of controversy surrounding the NCC's activities and the Park. It would be inappropriate to remove it so I think that tagging is the appropriate measure I think. I would have to agree that the article has content that is negative to the NCC. But, the NCC is notoriously difficult to get direct information on any project or plan and it may be difficult to present their side here. I recall that from when they wanted to build a highway interchange at the north end of Island Park. This is also made more difficult under the current Harper government which wants to control information. I think that you could almost argue that the NCC is an agency hostile to the local public and that is a long-standing complaint of Ottawans. Anyway, I will start looking for newspaper sources through Canada Newstand, which does have the Ottawa Citizen going back before 1980. I am sure it will not be hard to find people critical of the NCC for the record. To the IP user, I would suggest creating a Wikipedia account when you are working on an article extensively. I welcome coverage of controversy, and energy on an article is good too. Alaney2k ( talk) 15:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added several new references, some of them electronic where available, and removed weasel words, replacing them with what I feel to be more balanced terminology. I have also removed the tags, but left the top notices in place pending your approval, or suggested changes.
Much of the information is available on the parliamentary web site. Other documents at the national library. Will provide any information required, if I have it.
I hope this meets with your approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Good changes. Yes you have attributed statements correctly. I have also added many electronic references to facilitate verifiability.
Well done. The entry is much stronger as a result of your efforts and advice. Will continue adding any electronic references I can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have added any available NCC reactions or comments throughout, and I believe this may meet with your requirements for greater balance. Also have added other weblinks. So, I believe we have resolved most of the issues you have raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 ( talk) 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You are very rigorous and a tough taskmaster. Thanks to your advice, the story of Gatineau Park is much more accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The political aspects of the article, including all the new photos, are starting to dwarf the park descriptive aspects of the article. It seems like the political controversies will only add to the article over time, while the descriptive aspects probably will not get a lot larger. I am wondering if it isn't time to split the article into this one (as a park-descriptive article) and a new one, perhaps entitled Politics of Gatineau Park, which would, of course be linked from this article and vice-versa. I'd like to hear from everyone watching this article, if you have an opinion. - Ahunt ( talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at the Banff article, or any encyclopedic article on US or other Canadian parks. You will see a discussion of the several issues that may be controversial. Moreover, for example, any credible article on Jasper would be incomplete without a discussion of the mysteriously disappearing water, which may be caused by poor park/hotel management.
There are only 2 links to the Politics article, not counting the political controversy link. I have respected most of your changes. And since I wrote most of the article, and completely overhauled the very poorly written and factually incorrect sites and activities section, you should respect my changes. Besides, much of what you are trying to remove you had previously approved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong, my dear Fralembert: Ahunt split the article and achieved what he felt to be a "balance." So we now have an article with a "snapshot" of previously hidden park history (Alissa Apostle in her 1997 Queen's University Thesis says the park's history was erased and re-written--and my research pretty well confirms her conclusion.) as well as a brief discussion of sites and activities. Moreover, there was almost nothing on the "wildlife, the flora, the forest, the geology, the hydrology and the climate" before I edited the article. So why did you not make a point of it when the article was very poor/sketchy? Besides, you are free to add such material, should you be so inclined.
And where else, in the whole world, will you find such a clear and condensed overview of the park's history as well as threats facing it? The point of my contribution is to help wikipedia visitors understand what is "really" going on in Gatineau Park.Somehting you won't find on the NCC's Web site, although it spends millions of taxpayer dollars on "communicating" with the public. Stoneacres
Okay, I will agree to your reworked paragraph, only correcting a faulty noun-verb agreement. However, I insist on keeping the hat note. That way it is clear from the start that there is an issue with the way the park is administered. If you wish, you might remove one of the other links--maybe the controversy one. Stoneacres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.216.199 ( talk) 19:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Stoneacres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.216.199 ( talk) 23:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahuntand I had a consensus on the hatnote. So it is placed at the beginning.-- Stoneacres ( talk) 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Those guidelines are prescriptive, not restrictive. Besides the editing guidelines advocate being bold, and allow up to ten links per article. I have inserted a hatnote.
My feeling is Ahunt and M.Nelson are trying to suppress facts. Might they have friends/family with private park inholdings, an ideological bias, friends/family who work for the NCC,etc.? Seems many of their changes are purely whimsical. Perhaps they are power tripping. Their timing seems rather interesting. Gatineau Park is on everyone's mind, and viewer figures confirm many people are checking this page out.
Their tactics are reminiscent of Disruption 101 and trying to control information the public has access to.
They keep threatening and warning me. I've heard the NCC and park landowners are past masters at that. I know Inclusionists would, and have already, defended this article as worthwhile and necessary. And that was before I added all the requested references, and more.-- Stoneacres ( talk) 01:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You are arbitrarily changing edits that make the text more streamlined and user friendly. Please say if you have a conflict of interest, since you appear to be trying to protect the status quo, NCC and inholders. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 13:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
From the way discussion is progressing at WP:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park, it seems likely that Politics of Gatineau Park will be deleted, and this article will be expanded (within reason) to cover the controversies deemed notable in the Politics article. Since the editing of these articles in itself is controversial, all major changes should be determined by consensus on the talk page before adding to the article.
Today the park is administered by the National Capital Commission, a body that has attracted considerable public controversy for its policies on park boundaries, [1] private land ownership [2] and allowing construction in the park. [3]
Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate for public access and use of the park and oppose private development in it. [4]
Well that's a start. I have reverted your move of the picture, since you did not act on consensus, as you had said should be done. As well, I think the picture was fine where it was. However, I will respect your edit of the caption.-- Stoneacres ( talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I undid Ahunt's revision, because the article mentions the GPPC's activities, and more importantly, because the page of the web site http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html provites a referenced article illustrating the point made in the Wiki sentence. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 02:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You have not demonstrated the unreliability of http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html. In fact you are expressing a personal view that it is not reliable. It provides sources and documents you will find nowhere else. That is why it should be included as a reference.
Besides, you mention the organization in the article and do not provide any reference to it. So I suggest you either delete the unsupported reference to the GPPC and NWPL, or add a refererence to http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html.
You are suppressing reliable and verifiable information in support of a Wikipedia article. This should be denounced as a violation of the letter and spirit of encylopedic knowledge.l-- Stoneacres ( talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You are misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. You are displaying bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. You interpret them to suit your POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.
In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahunt, you are misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. Ahunt you are showing bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. You Ahunt interpret them to suit your POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.
In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on you Ahunt.
And there you go again playing the victimology card: my comment wasn't a personal attack: it is a description of a fact: you interpret the rules to suit your ideological agenda, you are suppressing reliable and verifiable sources, and are displaying bad faith as a result.
Your shame is held up for the entire world to see. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay I thought it would be helpful to summarize where were are on this issue:
So far then there is no consensus to include a link, but I am interested to hear User:Stoneacres response to 66.173.140.100's idea when he gets unblocked. I am also interested to hear from other editors watching this page to gain a broader consensus. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for jumping the doghouse fence by editing this page without signing in. For the record, I am user Stoneacres editing without signing in.
I concur with [User:Racepacket|Racepacket]]'s suggestion that the sentence mentioning the GPPC should provide a reference to the GPPC web site: http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html
As for not including any GPPC material on Wikipedia, Ahunt and MNelson already should know that I agreed not to add any park content on Wikipedia, before running it by them for agreement/modification on the discussion page. So, that's already agreed. Adding a reference, as far as I'm concerned, is not adding content -- only helping to support and illustrate it.
Moreover, Ahunt, MNelson and I agreed that two more paragraphs needed to be added to the Gatineau Park article: one on boundaries; one on land management. And I'd add that a third, brief, paragraph should mention that legislation has been introduced recently in both houses to address the problems related to boundaries and land management. In fact, that paragraph might be not much longer than the preceding sentence, just to let readers know something is going on and to wrap up the two paragraphs nicely.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to submit those paragraphs to the discussion page for approval, since I was dealing with other matters.
Begging your indulgence for breaking the doghouse curfew by editing without signing in, I remain, your, Stoneacres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.234.69 ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest Gatineau Park article might be edited as follows (3 last paragraphs before Sites), to comply with a past agreement. The first paragraph is a slightly tweeked version of the current one. The second paragraph ties in the legislation issue in tight summary. And the last paragraph is exactly the current one. I believe it flows nicely and fits with criteria set out above by Ahunt and MNelson.
-- Stoneacres ( talk) 04:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As for User:Racepacket's proposal, I agree that one ref. to the GPPC website should be included, and agree to not add any reference, content or links after that without specific agreement from wikipedia editors on this talk page. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 19:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the references you placed are in the right place. Below, is the text with "controversy" replacing "criticism". As well I have added references as suggested.
-- Stoneacres ( talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the new sentence could read:"Its policies on park boundaries, land management and ownership, as well as on residential construction in the park, have been the subject of controversy.
I have included the change in the proposal above. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 21:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't dare make the change without a definite okay from you or MNelson. And if it's okay with you, I'd like to remove the redundant "King donated his 600-acre..." Because it's said twice in the sites section.
I never found any reference anywhere about the Ryan Tower. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have editted the redundancies in the sites section. When I rewrote it last year, to give it a little more oomph, I had let my focus on the park's politics make me overlook such a stylistic blunder. Begging the indulgence of the committee, I remain, sincerely, -- Stoneacres ( talk) 17:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
On rereading the sections and proposals above, I believe the latest proposed text takes into account MNelson's edits, and Ahunts approval. Therefore, I will edit the main page with the text as follows:
Today, the National Capital Commission manages the park, along with all federal lands and buildings in Canada's National Capital Region. Its policies on park boundaries, [1] land management and ownership, [18] as well as on residential construction in the park, have been the subject of controversy. [19]
To address these issues, several private members’ bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Commons since 2005. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] The federal government also tabled its own Gatineau Park legislation in June 2009. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] None of the bills tabled so far has been enacted into law.
Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate greater public access to the park while opposing residential development inside it. [31] -- Stoneacres ( talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Mnelson: I agree that a string of reference numbers may be distracting to readers; however, since we are venturing into new territory, I believe it safer to leave them.
As it stands, I wish to thank all editors. Though we have had our slugfests, so to speak, I believe the article as is offers an excellent, accurate primer to anyone wishing to find out what's going on in Gatineau Park. Our several clashes, I believe, have given birth to something important. And I believe we have achieved the balance, in relation to sites and activities, which Ahunt had rightly said was missing (when the article was sort of an on-going journal of issues related to the park).
In juxtaposition with the GPPC web site, I believe the public now has excellent tools to assess fairly what ails Gatineau Park.
Note: with regard to the dimension of the park: we say 361 sq. km, AND 363 sq. km. According to my best information, the latter figure is correct...
Much thanks.
-- Stoneacres ( talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that footnote 29 is wrong. It talks about beaches, whereas it is supposed to illustrate NCC policy on motorboats. Any help/advice would be appreciated. -- Stoneacres ( talk) 14:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
References
I have written a text presenting a balanced view of the Gatineau Park trail trash issue. Are you okay with reinstating the deleted photo? Stoneacres ( talk) 01:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I take your point; however, some encyclopedia's do cover recent events. That's why they're updated every few years. As for being short lived, I have found glass/garbage on five park trails, which suggests the problem has been going on for some time (the contractor only rehabilitates a few trails a year). Stoneacres ( talk) 03:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I hope the following will help Ahunt understand why I undid his change. And why you can start a sentence/paragraph with a conjunction.
This is what R.W. Burchfield has to say about this use of and: at the beginning of a sentence:
“There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues.” (The New Fowler's Modern English Usage,edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996).
And here’s an example of its use from one of the masterpieces of English literature, the King James Bible: Genesis 1:3:
“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. “9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
“14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
“20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
“24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
“26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
And I would add there are countless references supporting use of conjunctions at the beginning of paragraphs/sentences, and dispelling its prohibition as myth … And arbitrary practice. Stoneacres ( talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone find something to back up the fact that at 90,000 acres, Gatineau Park is the biggest urban park in the world ? The next closest is Table Mountain National Park in South Africa at 60,000 acres. UrbanNerd ( talk) 03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)