Talk:British Columbia/Archive 3

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.

This drew my eye, and curiosity:

Campbell's government successfully led the effort to bring the 2010 Winter Olympics to Vancouver. Under the Campbell regime the economy of British Columbia has revived substantially, aided significantly by improvements in global resource markets^[1], especially greater demand for resources in Asia.

The last line is a new bit from Antarctic Penguin, and it needes a specific line-cite unless it's in the BC govt reference provided. Both opening phrases credit the Campbell government - rather than simply the BC government - is that really teh wording of the reference, or its imputation? If so then it's an issue of using public resources to promote a political agenda, but that's nothing new in government information spending in BC either. Does the link say the govenrment led the effort or did it use some other verb. My impression is that iwas VAAOC who led that effort, followed closely by the Mayor(s) of Vancouver. The claim that the economy "has revived substantially" is pure politics - see this analysis which paints a very different picture; it's part of the neo-con mantra that business was in bad shape under the NDP but nothing is further from the truth, the GPP was higher and growth rates higher, notably under Harcourt. There was a lot of hype that BC's economy was in bad shape, but the numbers never held up - the tragedy of having nothing resemblign free speech in the tightly-controlled partisan press; "make a lie big enough" etc also being part of the disinformation that the economy was "revived", which is further explained by the 200 staffers in the PUblic Information Bureau in teh basement of the Ledge who crank out materials ilke the citation provided. I think a policy with regard to disingenuous use of government press releases has to be come up with; they can't be considered reliable sources if they start offering partisan - and false - analysis; official or not, or mabye especially because official, they can't be considered authoritative on any political matters. Two mentions of Campbell's name in one paragraph, also, strikes em as over-repetition, though for now I'm not into restructuring the sentences to remove it; maybe later. The shift in usage from "scandal" to "criticism" is also highly questionable; in BC it was an is referred to as a scandal; euhmerizing the term to "criticism" strikes me as POV, despit the edit comment that this was an effort to de-POVize....also most of our resource exports continue to be to the US....(and all privatization deals go to US ownership, not Asian; the last major BC assets to go to Asian ownership were the Expo Lands and the Bank of BC, adn those were done by Socreds).Skookum1 (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Eckankar listed as an Eastern Religon. The roots of this religon are clearly American. -Xaremathras (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:British Columbia is itself a category within Category:Provinces and territories of Canada. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the "pagename" category should be present, even though its parent is present. This is quite standard.Skookum1 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to get to

Well, it turns out that in-text uses of

BCER into the railway and for now leave bcer up in the air for discussion.Skookum1 (talk

) 13:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Took the tour of the Parliament building yesterday and they said that Tourism is now the second largest industry in British Columbia after forestry. I don't have an online source to quote, so I thought I would mention it here and maybe someone can add it to the page if they want. 207.6.24.207 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody knows that marijuana is the largest industry in the province, underpinning even the real estate and retail/services sector...tourism's actually been larger than forestry since the '80s but politicized statistics-keeping has maintained the illusion that forestry is larger (and/or mining); ditto with the idea that forestry was the first industry; nope, it was the fur trade (retail/wholesale) and the fishery...oh, and I forgot, between real estate speculation and government overspending/graft, there are two other big inudstries that should be mentioned.....Skookum1 (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a few items to demonstrate who selective and "thin" the list had been; this whole section should just be a link to the "

Here is the link to the Outline of BC, and more help with it would be appreciated; I note the addition of Health regions in the See also, and there will also be MoE and MoF regions and lots of other regions (all of which are just as much valid regionalizations as Wikipedia's current obsession with BC regional districts); I'll launch List of administrative divisions of British Columbia, which has been needed for quite a while, later today.Skookum1 (talk

) 12:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It was just grating to see "just the cliches - Queen Charlotte Islands, Kootenays and Okanagan all there was in regions, and only the Rocky Mountains for mountains; I'd think other than the main, basic lists that [[List of British Columbia-related topics should suffice until the Outline is ready (and it's not); I'll hack 'er down right now.Skookum1 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO, The "See also" section should not contain links to pages that do not exist (red links). Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage

03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't place the Outlines redlink, I just respected the in-line request to leave it; I've worked on it quite a bit but it still needs a bit of work, though it's close to being potentially public....help appreciated...I keep on fixing things on it and winding up repairing/expanding/amending linked articles.....it's far superior to the Index of British Columbia-related topics, which if ever finished would be way too long.Skookum1 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. It turns out that the person who placed it there wasn't aware of the guideline either. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been stated on your site in several locations under the heading of "Daylight Savings Time" that there are parts of British Columbia that does NOT observe this. However, you never say specifically who in B.C does not observe DST.

Please include them and any other areas of Canada

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.106.194 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get one added to match the other provinces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.54.251 (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I was through to update some Ethnic identity info from the 2006 census, and I also removed a paragraph or so of discussion on ethnicity in BC. I've copied it in below, so others can comment. There were no references, and some of it might not be true. Certainly, however, it seems to me like it doesn't belong, unless someone's going to put together a more complete overview of ethnicity in BC (including mention of relevant aboriginal ethnicities, immigration patterns and trends of self-identity. Feedback and disagreement welcome. AshleyMorton (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed text:

Within the South Asian communities, the

Sikh

population is the most notable in extent, especially in Surrey and South Vancouver.

Also present in large numbers relative to other cities in Canada (except

American ancestry is under-reported; many Americans crossed into British Columbia during 19th century gold rushes and political turmoil like the Vietnam War

.

There are studies of the first/second generation thing re Europeans and it's stated openly in Barman's and Bowering's works, and other histories of the province; also in Strangers Entertained, which was a BC Govt centennial publication from 1971. The comment about English being more reported than Canadian can easily be sourced by looking at census figures, but it also is in Barman, who comments on it with some alarm (it's trendy to be anti-British in modern historiography). The multi-European history of BC/Vancouver vs Toronto is, again, widely published and also easily found by looking at historical censuses; Western Canada as a whole has more European ("real European", not "European" in the racial sense, i.e. not including British) than other parts of Canada, and was settled by a wide "rainbow", though BC settlers were not agricultural-settlement-program instigated as was the case with the Prairies; the goldfield era in particular saw lots of Scandinavians (mostly Norwegians), lots of Italians, Portuguese, "Austrians" (including Poles and Ukrainians) and of course Americans. I don't have the time, or the books handy, to item-cite all of what you've taken out, but it's all in books already in the references section as well as discernible from census figures, and from Strangers Entertained. Also to note, as was pointed out to me by a cousin who ran the census in PEI and NB in '06, that the ethnicity figures are not "pure number" but based on a 10% sample of the population, i.e. those who got the extended form rather than the short one; so the figures are extrapolations, not actual real numbers.Skookum1 (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess my primary problem with the text was that it seemed to be picking out certain features from the demographic data (which, from what you're saying, would appear to be correct info), rather than providing an overview or complete discussion. Some of it looked like it should more properly be in the Vancouver article, not BC, as well, but that's secondary. For example, concerning my selectivity concerns, I would point out that there was a comment about intermarriage of 3rd generation Europeans, but nothing about other ethnicities, or 1st, 2nd or 4th generations, or... you see what I mean? I'm willing to trust the accuracy of the info (as you clearly have better access to these sources than I do!), but I really think that it's giving undue weight to a couple of very specific features.AshleyMorton (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, a complete overview of the demographic data wouldn't just focus on ethnicity/visible minority, language and religion, which is the habit of Canadian wikipedia articles; compare to demographic sections in American and UK town articles, which cover age, marital status, income etc. My intention with the specific ethnic features was in contrast to the Canadian norms, i.e. distinctive features of the BC social landscape; among these is the observation (again, in Barman and elsewhere) that those of UK descent in BC are of recent generations - not surprising when you consider the main era of settlement was from 1885 onwards, but also correlative to the reality that first-generation Britons were commonplace in BC up until the 1960s, so much so that Barman and others state (with a bit of alarm/horror) that it was easier to buy British papers in Vancouver than it was those from Toronto. Rates of intermarriage between ethnic groups are not directly discernible from the census information, except by way of those with multiple ancestries, but they do show up in journalistic and academic histories; some groups, Norwegians and Irish in particular, also readily intermarried with Indians, but there's also material out there somewhere about BC having the highest rate of interracial and interethnic marriage, though again not directly discernible, or accounted for in the census. The publicly-available census data also focusses on visible minority stats, while ethnic background is hidden within pay-for documents although there's a few urban agglomeration tables that cover ethnicity (Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George, Abbotsford and certain others); but there's no specific ethnic data on places that are notably ethnic in composition, though some of that can be drawn by the mother-tongue and religion responses, e.g. for Germans in the Cariboo or for Doukhobours in the Kootenays and Boundary. But the concentrations of Hungarians in Prince Rupert-Terrace, of Italians in Revelstoke and Trail, or even the Finns of Sointula or the Norwegians of the Bella Coola Valley, are not in the public census Canada tables; though the visible minority stats are, even if there aren't any visible minority people present, or only in single-digit numbers; the political priorities of the census are on race, not ethnicity. It would help if, say, there were items like "country of origin of grandparents/parents" but there aren't. The ethnic figures, as noted above, are also based only on a 10% sample, and are extrapolations; I'm not sure about the visible-minority data, I'll ask my cousin as he'd know....as far as the sources, which I obviously retain but have since stored or given away, I can't get into the needed line-cites; Strangers Entertained does have some population figures but mostly focusses on the circumstances of each immigrant group, and some of their more notable members; a very interesting read at times, especially as concerns the Germans; it barely touches on the Chinese, curiously enough...though J. Morton's In the Sea of Sterile Mountains more than makes up for that. About colonial-era settlement, a read through the 1871 census is pretty interesting for some towns and is a demonstration fo the polyglot/multiethnic nature of the early colony/province, which belies the nostrum about it being "so British"; ditto with various histories of the early province/colony which address the multi-national origins of the Gold Colony without obsessing on the white/Chinese/native modernist paradigm, i.e. "race" and a monolithic view of the so-called "European" element (which, in BC, until the age of multiculturalism, referred to those from continental Europe, not the UK, and excluded assimilated Canadians an Americans). All this is "out there" somewhere, I'm sorry I don't have the time/resources to spend on this further, like so much else in Wikipedia, but these are issues that should eventually be addressed; as should things like the non-ethnic/racial census data, e.g. economic/workforce, marital status/income strata etc....Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Phew! I certainly didn't realise, when I deleted that stuff, that someone had so much background in it. A couple of points:

* I agree with you about the fact that demographics sections should be much broader. I find it frustrating, particularly when there are articles with sections called "Culture" where we speak of nothing but ethnicity. I think that we in Canada have an appropriate pride in our multi-ethnic country, but that we occasionally allow it to spill over and blind us to other definitions of words like "diversity", "culture", or some times even (as you point out correctly) "European" or "immigrant"!

* I believe that the census data in these areas are now 20% data - that's why every number ends in a 5 or a 0.

* I'm sure you're familiar with it, but in case not, I have been relatively happy with what's available here: [1] - It includes the CMAs and the CAs, so that's all communities down to 10,000 (or those that used to be that size, so BC gets down to Kitimat) I understand that it misses some significant, interesting populations, but it catches some of what you're mentioning (Prince Rupert, Williams Lake, Cranbrook are all present.)

* I'm going to try a little bit of a re-organisation. I'll take what I think belongs in "Vancouver" over there, put most of the rest of it back in, but I think I'm still not sold on the "American" ethnicity being under-reported. I feel like that's the sort of comment that effectively criticises the very numbers we're using right above it - thus, it demands a source, more than other statements might. Finally, I'll leave out the comment about Sikhs being "most notable in extent" - that could mean any of several things, and I'm not sure which was originally meant. Sorry for the disruption! AshleyMorton (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I had to take out the line about BC being the only place where "English" outnumbers "Canadian" - that's now true in other provinces, too. I think that it became significantly less popular to self-report as "Canadian" between 2001 and 2006. We didn't "lose" 220,000 ethnic Canadians from BC in those five years, yet that's what the numbers say. Additionally, that trend was repeated across Canada, meaning that Scottish is now ahead of "Canadian" in PEI; English in Ontario; English, Scottish and German in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan; English and German in Alberta; English and Scottish in BC; English, Scottish and "North American Indian" in the Yukon; English and "North American Indian" in the NWT; and English, Irish, Scottish and Inuit in Nunavut. Interesting to see trends like that in self-reported data!

Finally, I would note - with regard to your comment about the census data asking about grandparents, it comes pretty close - it asks "What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person's ancestors?" In 2001, they asked "To what ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person's ancestors belong?" I think that when they ask about "origins", we get "English" or "Vietnamese", while when they ask about "groups", we get "Canadian". AshleyMorton (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before, however not only does the BC government website not have a French spelling, but the Canadian government website does not have a French name for BC on it's English page. So those of the opinion that the French name should be included due to the federal government being officially bilingual and the provincial government not having an official language, should be satisfied with the English Wiki only having English, as it would be consistent with the federal government's English pages.

Province of British Columbia - http://www.gov.bc.ca/ Government of Canada - http://canada.gc.ca/othergov-autregouv/prov-eng.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.44.83 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC) british columbia is awsome made by sierra rsoe eakins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.18.160 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

British Columbia is the official spelling of BC. No other name needs to be used. It states on Please see

WP:PLACE that english is to be used in english articles. If a reader wants to know the french spelling it is stated in the first paragraph of every Provincial article, or there are over 500,000 frrench articles on french wikipedia. If french is needed in the infobox here then it should be in every Canadian geographic article infobox on wikipedia. Po' buster (talk

) 14:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to others - this issue is under discussion at

WP:CANTALK. --Skeezix1000 (talk

) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANTALK if you wish to initiate a discussion of whether French names should be reflected in the infoboxes or not, but neither of these policies, as currently written, says that they can't be. Bearcat (talk

) 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As with so much else I have strong feelings about this, but will do my best to disengage them, but two historical issues present themselves worth mentioning; one is that French is important in the history of pre-colonial and early colonial British Columbia, including of many company (HBC) and government servants and in the composition of early settlers (many of whom were Belgian and French-from-France rather than from Quebec or Acadia; the canadien element tended to be Prairie Metis, when not a francophone Algonquian). With the onset of the gold rush and the declaration of the mainland colony, they were quickly outnumbered by other linguistic elements, including Germans, Scandinavians, Italians and of course Chinese - but even some Poles and Ukrainians ("Galicians"); the intimation here is that all these languages had equality within the colony - Begbie in fact held trials with juries selected by language - and the colony was in no way bilingual. But before 1858 the term "British Columbia" did not exist - the colony's charter was declared in English, and in no other language to my knowledge. The name of the region, in HBC parlance, was either la departement de Columbia (or de la Columbia, I'm not sure), and/or I'm pretty sure I've seen whatever "district" is in French (districte?), which by the time of the gold rush had absorbed, as a term, the northern region known as la departmenet de Nouvelle-Caledonie. And as you'll find the French-language version of

Campement des Femmes ("women's camp"). Should Telegraph Creek be riviere de la telegraphie? Similarly, "100 Mile House" does not translate, or should not be translated; that's its name, like Medicine Hat....(not cap/chapeau du medicin/ales. Never mind, ocne again, that colombie is a historical mistake and does not refelct historical origin/meaning properly. The British sector of the Columbia District, that's the sense; which, ironically, was mostly - other htan local natives - French speaking until that partition (though all in the service of a British company) and French loanwords abound in all local native languages....Skookum1 (talk

) 06:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Toronto's population is quoted in 3 times more area, Montreal almost 2 times more area, then there's cities in the US like Denver and Houston that cover 10-15 times more area than cities like Vancouver and Victoria. Why does BC do that when most of it's population is in the same general region ?Grmike (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Terrain on the one hand, politics on the other. Vancouver and Victoria are hemmed in by sea and, in Vancouver's case, the mountains and the border. But if you're referring to why Vancouver as a city doesn't include all its adjoining municipalities/suburbs, that's a political issue and a deeply divisive one in BC, partly because all those cities evolved with separate identities (e.g. New Westminster, Surrey, Port Moody, Langley etc - where no one would want Vancouver's agenda to trump the local area one. Toronto and Montreal are amalgamations, as are e.g. Winnipeg and Kamloops and Prince George; this has not happened in Vancouver, or Victoria, for too many political/historical reasons to explain here; nobody in the Lower Mainland wants a unified regional govenrment, except those whose interests would be served by that concentration of power. But beyond that, as noted, the landscape provides severe limits on where people can live; even when amalgamated, the Greater Vancouver REgional District is will not as large as Toronto, Montreal, Kamloops or Winnipeg in area. It just can't be, unless there were some point in including hundreds of square miles of uninhabitable mountainscape....Skookum1 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I was thinking about the lists where they have the largest urban areas in the world and thought about why Vancouver wasn't higher up. there are large uninhabited sections of every major urban area even metro Toronto (the green belt around Toronto). was thinking about Sydney, Australia, I think it covers about 5 times more area than metro Vancouver and has less than twice the population. wouldn't it be in Vancouver's interest to create some kind of an area around Vancouver that has 3.5 million people (i'm sure it could get that with 20 thousand square kilometers) so that at least you'd have some kind of proof that it is comparable in size to places like Seattle ?Grmike (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

LOL It would certainly be in Vancouver's interest, but not in Abbotsford's, Surrey's or Maple Ridge's. Larger, centralized administrations do not necessairly translate into better govenrment for one thing, but in Greater Vancouver's case it would mean that Vancouver's priorities would take precedence over those of lesser-populated municipalities more than it already does. As for your figure of 3.5 million in 20,000 sq km no that's just not geographically possible. There's big things called the Coast Mountains, Cascade Mountains and Georgia Strait very much in the way. Victoria and Nanaimo would want no part of a municipal government centred on a larger mainland population....the next nearest populous areas to the Lower Mainland on the mainland side of the water are on the other side of the mountains, a good couple of hundred klicks away (Kamloops and the Okanagan cities);p the mountains in between are so rugged the largest communities within the belt are in the 5000 range and a long ways from each other. No other province in Canada, and other than Alaska without a similar comparison in the US, is so much defined and limited by topography as is British Columbia. Maybe at some point the Highway 99 and Highway 1 belts will be densely populated, but even then it would only be on land immediately adjacent to the highway; everything else is canyon, mountainside, alpine etc. The Lower Mainland is maybe 1600-3000 sq km in size (roughly 80-100km E-W and avg up to 20-30km N-S only, more like 20 than 30); anything else in a 20,000 sq km chunk of the mainland is completely uninhabitable, and without relevance as part of municipal governance (the provincial government in BC likes to directly control as much land as possible, to keep from having to deal with other levels of government, including the weak but vocal municipal level). In Olympics coverage, there's been a tendency to refer to Whistler as if it were part of Vancouver; in a cultural and economic sense it almost is now, but it's not in the Lower Mainland and its resident population is well below 10,000....Squamish is about that in population, maybe larger now. What's between West Vancouver and Squamish is an increasinbly-populated wealthy view-property belt, but none of those people want any more government than they already haev to put up with....Skookum1 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Ministry of Economic Development and BC Stats define a Mainland Southwest region which includes areas NE of Whistler and lying between Hope and Lillooet, i.e. including all that mountainous area I'm talking about; its population is not significantly larger than the population of the Lower Mainland proper. Not sure the figure, I could look it up, but it's not anywhere near 3.5 million (the provincial total is somewhere between 4 and 4.5 million currently, over half of that in the Lower Mainland, most of the rest in the South Island/Victoria).Skookum1 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who was born and raised in Greater Sudbury, went to university in Ottawa and now lives in Toronto, I have to say that if there were ever a really serious push to amalgamate the suburban municipalities around Vancouver into a single city government, I'd personally fly out there to slap some sense into whoever was spearheading it. All three of my "hometowns" went through it within the past 15 years, and it's been a total "this isn't really working!" cl*sterf*ck in all three of them. Although admittedly there wasn't any grand clamour from the voters for any of the amalgamations — all three were forced by a government that wasn't terribly interested in listening to anybody who wasn't already licking their boots. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's moves afoot also to break up the

Halifax Regional Municipality with a "Halifax" that incorporates Bedford, Sackville and Dartmouth urban/suburban areas and creates a separate municipality for more rural regions of Halifax County.....but in re your comments, the not-so-hidden agenda behind the much-misused name "Metro Vancouver" is explicitly an intention, on the part of some politicians, to move towards a centralized regional government, i.e. use of that term is inherently POV/Soapbox and "promotes" a political agenda. It's one of the many reasons I think Undue Weight has been placed on regional districts as wiki-divisions of British Columbia; they do not reflect actual geographic reality, but in actuality are a political agenda. The conversion of the Northern Rockies Regional District and the inherent amalgamation with same of the town of Fort Nelson recently to the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality is part of the same "streamlining" of local governance, whereby costs can be offloaded to local taxpayers from the provincial revenue pool (even though most revenues in a resource-oriented region like that are resource royalties, i.e. provincial, and not municipal tax revenues, which are property-based - and given that most residents outside of Fort Nelson live on Indian Reserves which are NOT part of the NRRM, and who did not vote to have their territories made part of that municipality....well, it's very much a political agenda, not a natural one. Ft Nelson was the only incorporated place in that RD, such an amalgamation would probably be a lot harder for most other regional districts; the Central Coast RD has no municipalities at all and would seem to be a likely candidate for Victoria-ordered constitution as a regional municipality; but it would require treaties with the Heiltsuk, Owikeno, Nuxalk and Xai-xais who would otherwise be excluded from such a government (and are about 90% of that area's population).Skookum1 (talk

) 15:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Another factor is the Agricultural Land Reserve, which protects class-A farmland from development. There is very little highly productive farmland in BC relative to its overall size and much of it is in the Fraser River valley and delta, so as provincial policy the farmland is protected from development. This has tended to force a higher density of development rather than unchecked urban sprawl as in cities like Toronto or <insert any US city name here>. Franamax (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but I should add that the ALR is nowhere near as sacrosanct as it once was, and there's all kinds of it that get pulled out for political-insider reasons, especially in Richmond, Delta and Surrey - the Basi-Young case currently in court (under a court ban so it's not in the papers) deals with the removal of ALR lands via some influence peddling, money laundering etc (can't remember teh full list of charges) and there's any number of historical incidents where large chunks of the ALR were taken out of it to help out a ruling-party campaign donator; Social Credit and BC Liberal governments would rather it didn't exist, but the NDP (who created it) also allowed important parcels to be taken out during their tenure in the '90s;. It mostly remains in force (i.e. and not so much politically fiddled with) in the upper and central area of the Valley - Mission, Abby, Chilliwack, Agassiz-Kent - though parcels of it survive in Richmond, Delta etc - just nowhere near as large as had once been the case....it's more that things like berry bogs don't make for good places to build - too expensive for the landfill to stabilize the ground (as if any of Richmond were stable)...what's interesting is that there is ALR inside the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby (along the Fraser).Skookum1 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been some talk about a unified police force for the Metropolitan Vancouver Area, especially in light of the increase gang activity and related violence and deaths in recent years. Vancouver's mayor, Gregor Robertson, had brought it up again after he won the election. I know there have been sympathetic rumblings from the other municipalities as well, but as whether anything will come of it is another question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit 11 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A radius of 150 km of Vancouver would have about 3.5 million people. Campell River south to Victoria + the Lower Mainland. Said Area would be about 20000sqr km. I think that was the gist of what the original poster was trying to convey. This would be similar to how the CSA are composed in the States or like the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario. I could go into it deeper but the meaning would be lost in being overly verbose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.84 (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the etymology section it may be interesting to mention that the river itself got its name from a private vessel named Columbia Rediviva. Ergo, British Columbia got its name from that vessel. 78.53.47.125 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just think that It should be mentioned that the BC coast (specially in the south) has a very maritime climat, whith winter average temperatures far above the rest of Canada. Vancouver has more a three season climate then four season. Autumn passes over to spring whithout a long snowy and cold winter. This is dued to the fact that the coast of BC is a continental western coast (like Europe) - with mild winds from the pacific. (Continental eastern coasts above 35-40th latitide isn't helped by mild winds from the sea since the general wind is from west) Also the Rocky Mountains prevents the cold northern winds that the rest of Canada gets during a long winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.230 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Seventy-five percent of the province is mountainous (more than 1,000 metres (3,300 ft)

--Frankjohnli (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

HOw is that a mistake? it's true that only about 5% is arable....though that definition of "Mountainous" may not stand a test elevation-wise (some areas 1000m plus are plateau, for example).Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

They're saying that these percentages actually overlap. You can have mountainous regions that are forested, and mountainous regions with little pockets of arable land in the valleys, foothills, etc. So there is no mistake. MrMonday1 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed this phrase to refer to "arctic air masses" as such conditions are not always outflow winds but rather stable continental air masses which hold over the coast, deflecting the oceanic air masses. And NB "outflow winds" is a local usage which would need explaining, i.e. the descent of the plateau air masses via the inlets/river canyons through the Coast Mountains...the Alaskan term for these is

Somewhere in BC govt websites should be a digital version of a climate map for the province; maybe in the Ministry of Forests, I think.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Outflow wind sounds like the Mistral when it comes from the north-west and also the Santa Ana winds. That last article calls it a "drainage wind" and links to Katabatic wind which looks like the correct technical term. So maybe Outflow wind should be a redirect to katabatic wind? Franamax (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The infobox heading should be restricted to the province's official language, which is English. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to prove your claim. Daicaregos (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's there in the infobox - official language is English. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See here - [www.welcomebc.ca/wbc/immigration/choose/people/language.page], shows tha 83% are English. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That web address page does say "Eighty-three per cent of British Columbians speak English. English is the main language of communication in British Columbia ...". However, it does not support your claim that the province's official language is English. The only reference to official languages is: "Canada has two official languages: French and English. While most people in British Columbia speak English, there is also a Francophone community here, and many services-includingCitizenship and Immigration-are available in French."
Yes, it does say the official language is English in the infobox. However, it is unreferenced, and Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself. Please provide a link to a

verify your claim. Daicaregos (talk

) 19:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

English/French is the official language of Canada, that's federal. Since BC doesn't have a provincal official language (which an apparent lack of source prooves), then the English only version is required as this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So is your claim that the province's official language is English false? I assume you weren't aware of that when you made the claim. Daicaregos (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, I was mislead by the infobox's official languages section. A de-facto note, shouldn've been applied there. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Was that the extent of your research before making your bold claim? Given that the province lacks its own official language (if that is the case), is there any reason that the de-facto status of languages would be anything other than the the federal position? Daicaregos (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Federal position should not reflect that of the province. If that were the case then should the national anthem be included in every province article? After all, if the provinces don't have an anthem should the federal or national anthem then be the default position on these articles? Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that English and French should be noted as official languages. Daicaregos (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the French version of BC should be deleted from the Infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At least try to make a case for your POV.
A case can be made for the Federal position being the default, de facto position: For example, as far as I know, there is no official provincial position as to which side of the road people should drive. Consequently, with no official British Columbia position, the default, de facto position in British Columbia is the Federal position; i.e. to drive on the right. Daicaregos (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you're wrong; look up the BC Motor Vehicle Act and know that it's in all provincial driving exams (important when you consider the number of people from drive-on-the-left countries who have moved here).Skookum1 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The British Columbia Act and the subsequent British Columbia Constitution Act, I think it's called, which are federal legislations mandating BC as a province, may state that English is the operating/DBA language of the province, but I don't think there are any provincial statutes mandating an official language-of-state. it may be that the Office of the Speaker proscribes the language to be used in the House; but other languages are not unknown - a recent controversy over Jenny Kwan making an address in Chinese proved controversial, but I think the upshot was that there is no official language, otehr than the de facto status of English, not even in the House. Certainly the BC government does not publish, other than in federal-related documentation, anything in French (IRs in BCGNIS have two listings, one in French, one in English, but that's because they're also federally-registered names). Daicaregos, it may help you to understand this is a thorny issue in BC, and the use of Colombie-britannique is always controversial (it's also in etymological error, as BC is named indirectly for the Columbia River by way of the Columbia District, and the French names of both use :Columbia", not "Colombie", which refers to Colombia in South America...also in French it's typically in lower-case, not caps, though apparently there's a wikia Wiki convention about that...the usual French abbreviation in French is "le c.-b." or similar)...I have to reboot, more later.Skookum1 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Since there's no official language, the infobox heading should be in only English (as this is Eng Wikipedia). GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a reliable source, that English/French are the official languages. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting for Skookum1 to resume, as s/he seems to know what s/he's talking about. Daicaregos (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If he can provide a English/French reliable source? then we'd also have to add French to the Offical languages section' of the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's something interesting, the BC Government official website [2], doesn't say there's an official language. Furthermore, it says the 2nd most commonly used langauge (in BC) are Cantanese & Mondrin to be precise. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you always trying to eradicate anything that isn't 100% english. Just because something isn't english doesn't mean it doesn't belong. French is still an official language for the country, so the names of its provinces exist in both english and french officially. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the article Canada though. Are you suggesting we put English in Quebec's official langues section of its infobox? There's only 1 province with English/French as its provincial official langauge - that's New Brunswick. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the header of the infobox, not in the official languages section. The province itself has two official names. One in french and one in english. -DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not have an official language. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. Officially the province has two names. It would be incorrect to only state one of them. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. We're talking about BC, not Canada. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Guess who approved the names of the provinces? Canada. Guess who enacts all laws in english and french? Canada. As provinces of Canada, every province has two names. Whether or not they have two languages is another matter. Which is why the infobox for Quebec even though it only has English as a provincial language has both English and French versions in its infobox. If it didn't then we would have to only list the French version. -DJSasso (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that infobox criteria suggestion. Quebec has English as this is the English language Wikipedia. Percentage wise, 8 of the provinces & 2 of the territories have an overwhelming majority of English usage. This should be reflected in the infobox headings. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If the province has two official names, both should be in the infobox heading. We've been through this before. Franamax (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But it doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict reply to Franamax: yeah, but to unsatisfactory conclusion; it has an official name at the federal level, though how enshrined that "official-ness" is remains to be seen; it could just be convention, a result of translating of legislation etc. There's no where taht says "the official languages of British Columbia are French and English" AND there's nowhere, to my knowledge, that says "the official language of British Columbia is English", i.e. no statutory official-ness. As on my talkpage in response to GoodDay, I'll get in touch with teh Office of teh Speaker and/or the Provincial Secretary about this for clarification purposes. Language is a hot political issue in BC, or can be; using French on such a page IS controversial, despite federalists sentiments taht French is official because Canada is officially bilingual. French was never debated as an official language here, though German, Gaelic and Chinook Jargon were, and there've been proposals to amek Chinese an official language to make those new immigrants feel more at home; but French has never been on teh agenda. And it was here, I think Vander Zalm, maybe Rafe Mair, where a cabinet minister complained about having to read French on cereal boxes....Skookum1 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize that the wiki-standard for provinces with translatable names (Alberta, Yukon, Ontario etc don't translate;have alternate forms) is to have the French name included; but unlike BC, all of those (the NWT, NL, NB and NS) all have official-French status in their constitutional statutes).Skookum1 (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What's that mean? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It means that those other provinces/territories have good reason to have a French name as a second-name....I just called the Office of the Speaker, where the reception lady was very nice and heard me out and transferred me to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, where I explained the situation and asked could somebody direct me to any legislation or maybe hansard debates concerning official language use. It was made clear to me, by the Clerk's office, that in the House, English is the language of debate; use of other languages, such as Kwan's address in Cantonese to visiting HK businessmen, requires prior approval partly so they can arrange for translators. I won't have any reply until after the holiday......but it may boil down, wiki-wise, to not mattering if BC has any official language or not; the federal standard/mandate may well prevail; though it really does look, frankly, like an oddity from the BC perspective to use the French. Also for any legislative or statutory detail, I was advised that the Clerks of the Legislative Library have huge memories and can provide answers to lots of things beyond this.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the 'Canadian Government says so' criteria for these 13 infobox headings (provincial & territorial). But if that's the criteria we're gonna go with? there's addition to be made at Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario & Yukon. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was going to suggest, by reverse compromise, that the "French form" of each of those names be put in the alternate name field, even though they're orthographically the same (but they're not phonetically, for sure); with "Fr:" prefacing each. I've never clearly understood why the French insisted on a French form for a non-English name, i.e. Nova Scotia (which is in Latin), but logic and politics are generally mutually exclusive.Skookum1 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever ya'll think best. I'm pooped out & disillusioned aswell, over the infobox heading 'here' & at the NFD, PEI, NS, NWT & NUN infobox headings. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think sensitivity to "local" issues should be a primary criterion here, it's an encyclopedia article - though the popular reaction to bilingualism is perhaps worthy of note in the article or sub-article. But leaving aside the fact that the francophone population was present pretty much from first European contact, the issue is that provinces have a subsidiary position to the federal government. It's an uneasy position built from lots of acts of Privy Council and Parliament, but the feds do have some say. For instance, I believe the Constitution Act has both English- and French-language versions, of equal standing. So there are two official names for the provinces. Where both names are equal, no "alternate" is needed. Within Canada, the overarching jurisdiction, there may be two different official names for the province. It doesn't matter whether the language used in the Legislature is one or the other or both, that comes under Robert's Rules of Order. We should show the official names recognized by the senior legislation, I don't see how that could be promoting a "French agenda". Franamax (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Under Demographics- Ethnic groups, there is a table showing the ethnic groups, origin and percent of population. It shows that English and Scottish are the largest populations. Then, further down the list, it says British. This makes absolutely no sense, not to mention that it says the British population is much smaller than the English or Scottish populations. It says that the English and Scottish percentage of the populations are 29.6% and 20.3%, respectively, also with a percentage showing the Welsh population. It then says the British population makes up 1.8% of the province. I propose this be changed by taking out the British piece and leaving the English and Scottish percentages. MrMonday1 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree this is misleading in the way its presented - > Ethnic origins, 2006 counts for British Columbia. Moxy (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's like "African n.i.e." and others with that - not indicated as to which kind of British, that's the difference; and it's not like totally all of Scottish, Irish, Welsh, English, Cornish and n.i.e. are going to give a proper total, as many of those might be counted in both. Misleading yes but not for us to interpret.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually your right its nicely explained below..sorry Moxy (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that part of the paragraph underneath the table should be moved up over it, or even an asterisk should be put next to 'British' so that people don't misread it like I did. That's a funky little quirk about that table and I think a note like something above would help. MrMonday1 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This word isn't in English and doesn't translate the motto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no section on the culture of British Columbia in this article. Joey11123 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:I 61926.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:I 61926.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk ) 13:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have ordered and grouped the sections in a way that seems consistent with a majority of the Province articles. I intend to do the same with the other 9 plus territories unless someone disputes this. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the opening section needs lots more citations and I don't feel it is up to Wiki standards. It reads like a press release from the BC Government tourism office or a personal opinion of what BC means to you.

Statements saying that BC is known for being more liberal/progressive than other provinces, and that BC is well known for its multiculturalism and that BC is well known for 'embodying the Canadian identity', while they may all be true, they look unprofessional without being supported by citation.

Therefore, I added the requested citations to that paragraph. If someone can find them, pls add it...Otherwise, if not fixed, this section will need to be re-worded. Suggested article for citation: here... http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/10/07/VisMinority/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.73.89 (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

--Mezaco (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Among the provinces, British Columbia has been distinguished by its strong liberal views (in stark contrast to the other provinces west of Ontario)"

This is patently false. Manitoba and Saskatchewan (at least until recently for Sask., that province has moved to the right in recent years) have generally always been more progressive than BC. The only thing that BC would appear to have more liberal views with respect to (libertarian would be more true), is drug laws. II think this statement should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.41.18 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

BC is also known for right-wing wackiness.....LOL yes it should be removed; though its unique political culture somehow needs to be addressed in an NPOV fashion.Skookum1 (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re THIS edit about overly precise coords - I'm not sure where those coords came from, with your adjustment it brings them south a bit, but either location is in the

I have removed all the copy and pasting of lists...Will work on making it into real content with sources over the next few days. -- Moxy (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is huge we should move lots of the history section to History of British Columbia. Will take lots of time to source all this so would love some help with trimming the section before I start sourcing stuff. -- Moxy (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This article currently uses a mixture of templated and handwritten citations. I'd like to propose standardizing to the {{

As there were no objections, I have made this change. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Kinda curious why there's mention of court cases and the current premier, etc., etc. in the introduction. It's an overload of information that isn't really friendly to the reader.

It could be better put somewhere else. Maybe instead, just list some stuff that BC is generally known for to outsiders, and then the nitty gritty details that only residents of BC are really familiar with can be included in other sections, like 'current events', 'controversy' or 'politics' or whatever.

I recommend looking at the intro to the article on Montana, which describes it pretty well, with little bits of information that lead into the nitty gritty, such as general industry and economy information, as well as geography. Impfireball (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Columbia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100314102800/http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca:80/exhibits/timemach/galler07/frames/wc_peop.htm to http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/timemach/galler07/frames/wc_peop.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/37907/electoral_history.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081104230200/http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060927/d060927a.htm to http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060927/d060927a.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://vancouvereconomic.com/key_sectors/film_tv.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Who's Douglas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.32.216 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A link to James Douglas (governor) has now been added. Air.light (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Columbia. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/37907/electoral_history.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130707193800/http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcfacts/ to http://www.gov.bc.ca/bcfacts
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/vpl

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.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

BC is not part of Francophone Canada and French is only spoken by a small number of people in BC. It also has no official status. Should it be removed?--92.40.253.176 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Punjabi also appears. 92.40.253.176 does not mention Punjabi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.110.150 (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed it, clearly just qb nationalist silliness that has no place in the article. --60.255.0.19 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not Quebecois "nationalist silliness" to provide a province's name in both official languages. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island all provide the French version of their names in their articles' respective introductory paragraphs - despite their small Francophone populations - because their names in English and French differ; British Columbia's article should match this precedent. Restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.235.233 (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically, none of the Western provinces do because the spelling is the same in English and French. I'm not opposed to its inclusion though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is the population of 4,991,687 coming from? I do not see a

@Walter Görlitz and Alex of Canada: Alex of Canada has added estimated population numbers to the demographic sections of all the provinces, and the number appears to have been copied from the estimated population listed in the infobox. My concern is that the estimated population number has been added to charts intended for a non-estimated census number (for example, at Nova Scotia, one of the chart parameters is a "five year % change"). I have reverted the edits, noting in the edit summary that "population" and "estimated population" are not the same thing. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Magnolia677 is totally onside on this. We cannot mix actual population counts and estimates in the historical population charts. It is one or the other, not a mix of two populationmethodologies. I trust the above and this will discourage what is evolving to an edit war on several articles. Hwy43 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

To editor Joeyconnick: I find it frustrating that a lot of the climate section is written like an advertisement. The advertisement-style language is not removed, but a couple parts I wrote was removed when you could have just fixed the citation, when in reality it just doesn't fit what you wanted to paint the climate as and you're just editing to push your own agenda. I can't help but think this is written not only for tourism, but to make it even harder to afford a home by increasing the amount of people moving to BC from other provinces. Thanks for not completely removing everything though, but I'm onto you. So are you in the tourism industry or real estate? Sorry if I'm assuming something that is wrong, which I hope I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctorchia87 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ctorchia87: Huh? I assume you mean this edit and this one? In both cases, you made changes either without explanation or without a source to back up those changes. It's not on me (or any other editor here) to find sources to back up your edits. That's ridiculous.

The rest of your comments aren't worthy of a response, other than to point you to

WP:CIVIL. —Joeyconnick (talk

) 02:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: You chose to delete it instead of adding a Citation Needed, implying you find the statement dubious or unhelpful. The second change, about towns with high elevation typically being colder, is much more reasonable from looking at the climate normals I cited than some other people's statements here that do not even have citations, for example the one about the coast wind chills being -17 "for a couple mornings" which you left intact. (For which I added a citation needed.) Plus the section sounds like an advertisement so that needs some serious attention. Readers deserve better. Ctorchia87 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't BC have any literature? Rwood128 (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The first section of this article is, for lack of a better word - a total mess. Compare it to the articles for other provinces, and all of them state basic facts about the province that would give someone a brief idea of the geography, demographics, economy, capital/major cities, and in some trivia/points of interest. Meanwhile, BC's article jumps from basic geography and population facts to a lengthy paragraph about pre-Confederation history that simply rewords information from the "History" section of the article. It should be completely cut. The third paragraph mentions a population estimate that is six years out of date, and gets into provincial politics from 2017, the final paragraph goes onto talk about Native land issues, all of this is completely unnecessary for an overview of the province. I cut most of this content in an edit, added some lines covering the places BC borders (in line with most articles on countries and subnational entities). I hope someone more familiar with how Wikipedia works or how to write these kinds of articles will give this some more attention and add any other relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.82.195 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The lede section should summarize all articles. It seems as though it is doing so here. If it is not doing so for other provinces, that should be changed there; our lede should not be simplified to reflect those of other provinces simply to have consistency. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead section is excessively long, and goes into details that should be limited to the body of the article. The anonymous edit was a definite improvement.Vgy7ujm (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor from before here, just want to say first that I'm not angry or frustrated by the edit being reverted, I'm not well versed with Wikipedia, and we're both clearly just trying to do what we feel is best for a good article. However, I disagree, the lede should summarize the subject of the article, but as it stands, it does not do so.

Here are the major issues with the article intro:

1. The lede does not sum up every part of the article, there's no mention of the province's major industries or say, the size of its economy among provinces. The only political facts offered are overly specific. and states information that could quickly become irrelevant with a provincial election, why in the summary of the province, do we need to know how Premier Horgan came into office? Or that the NDP are in a minority government?

2. There's a lengthy section that outlines Richard Clement Moody's contributions to British Columbian history, in the second paragraph. Is he relevant to British Columbia? Yes - but it's incredibly tangential to have all this information about him in an introductory section. Why do we need to know before the capital and largest city about his titles, that he was "handpicked" by the colonial office, or the poetic reasons for why he was to found the colony of British Columbia? Why do we need to know right away in an article about the entire province that a small city in Greater Vancouver is named after him, or that he designed the provincial coat of arms? These are more appropriate for the article on the man himself, or at most, in the history subsection of this article.

3. The third paragraph feels like it should follow the line about the founding of the Colony of British Columbia. And why do we need a line about the province's Latin motto when that can be found in the info box a few centimetres to the right?

4. The final paragraph of the lede starts on a redundant note - "British Columbia evolved from British possessions that were established in what is now British Columbia by 1871." we already know that thanks to the second and third paragraphs.

5. The final paragraph is also the very first mention of the First Nations who inhabit the area. It seems like an afterthought - "First Nations, the original inhabitants of the land, have a history of at least 10,000 years in the area." It's poorly written and provides little information, there's an entire paragraph devoted to a single man involved in the founding of the colonies and one line that gives any general information on BC's native peoples - what tribes inhabit BC? Where are they mostly located? What languages do they speak? Finally, the paragraph takes on a very "unwikipeida-like" tone, jumping into "long ignored" treaties and mentions one specific tribal group's legal victory in 2014.

In my opinion, a better summary of the province's history would start with the native peoples, then the first settlements by the British, the colonies being united, and when the province joined confederation. Logical flow, easy to follow, basic information. Paragraph four would become paragraph two, and the political information would be simplified as well, if not taken out entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.82.195 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)