Talk:Stanley Park

Third-largest urban park

Just curious, does anyone know what the first and second-largest are? Central Park in NYC is 200 acres smaller according to its wiki article, and the urban park in Tacoma (the only other one under the urban park entry doesn't have a size listed. - Dharmabum420 09:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I researched this a bit and there seems to be conflicting measurements or definitions of "urban park". I've put my findings in the Urban park article and Talk:Urban park. --Ds13 17:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Forest Park (Portland) is listed as 5,000 acres.--Anchoress 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find a reference to that one. But I added that it's the 3rd largest city-owned in North America (which I'm guessing by the qualifier that Forest Park is not city-owned), and the third largest urban park in Canada after Markham and Regina.Bobanny 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Trees 'hundreds of years old'?

My understanding of Stanley Park (vaguely supported by the statement in the article that the area was 'logged several times' is that it's all second growth +, which doesn't jibe with the info in the first paragraph that there are trees in the park that are 'hundreds of years old'.--Anchoress 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be "over a hundred years old" --Usgnus 03:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

citation, citation, citation. This question came up again, so I looked it up in the Greater Vancouver Book. According to Terri Clark, who works for the Park Board and wrote the article, the National Geographic Tree is approximately 1000 years old. According to Clark, "the magazine proclaimed it one of the world's largest (almost five metres in diameter) and most ancient trees, as cedars go, at approximately 1,000 years old."

I happen to have the article from where the tree gets its name: Mike Edwards, "Dream On, Vancouver," National Geographic 154, no. 4 (October 1978): 467-491. What the article actually says is this (page 468):

At the end of downtown's thumb, other towers -- western red cedars and Douglas firs -- rise from thousand-acre Stanley Park, largest in the city."

The caption for the photograph of the tree (which is on page 479, not on the cover as some books will tell you - a gorilla taking a photograph is on the cover of this issue) says:

"Verdant mast sailing skyward, a giant western red cedar 21 feet across its base (right) towers over lesser trees in Stanley Park."

So...a cynical reading is that Clark twists the statement that 'the trees in the thousand-acre park, the biggest in the city' into 'the thousand year-old tree is among the biggest and oldest in the world' (the article isn't clear whether it means that the trees or the park are the biggest in the city).

A more generous interpretation is that Clark relied on other sources for the actual size and age of the tree (which shouldn't be hard to come by working for the Park Board) and simply made a mistake in saying that the National Geographic proclaimed it so. Would've been nice if Clark cited those sources though, huh? Anyway, I'll add the GVB citation to the article because the 1000 year claim is plausible despite my nitpicking (the entire park was not logged in the 19th century). I'll see if I can find a more definitive source some other time.Bobanny 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I just called the Vancouver Parks Board and they're looking up a study done by MacBlo and will get back to me; they said all the loggable trees were denuded during the several (according to her) loggings Stanley Park experienced in the 19th century. I won't change anything until I get a citation, but she says pretty much no way, as far as the age of Stanley Park trees. And if it's not referring to actual trees in SP, AND I get a citation stating how old the trees are, I think the reference should go because it is misleading. The information about how old the trees can get can go into the articles about the trees themselves. IF it's true that there are no trees anywhere near that old NOW in the park, it doesn't matter how old the trees can get. Anchoress 23:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, I found said tree and took a picture, which can be found here. I'm still skeptical that there are any thousand year old trees left, judging by the size of them walking through the forest. Lots of stumps that are probably that old or older, but of the ones that are still alive, I'm skeptical. This one, although it's still standing, looks, well, dead to me. It reminds me of a telephone pole, and it's obviously been topped. Bobanny 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I got a call back from the parks board, and they didn't give me a citation (it was a phone message), but the woman (whose name and phone no I can give privately if anyone wants) said the arborists assert that it's extremely unlikely that any of the trees in Stanley Park are anywhere near 1000 years old. According to her, they said there may be a few old growth trees in the forest, but they are likely no older than 400 years, and they (the arborists) doubt any trees could get that old. But be that as it may, they almost certainly aren't. She communicated that the arborists thought it would be irresponsible to give the impression that there are millenium trees in the forest, they are nowhere near that old. I have had a horrible migraine for days so I haven't called her back, but I will ask if there's anything published that we can cite, but that's the 'hearsay' evidence. Anchoress 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked and your "hundreds of years old" conclusion seems to be the consensus. I changed that and added a citation from a recent book, so looks like we've come full circle on this question. Also changed the size, as the same book has trees much taller than what it said here (from the Vancouver Natural History Society). Bobanny 00:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo - What type?

What type of buffalo does the park have? I'm working on Disambiguation and want to get the right link up, or I might just put a general link for bison up... ~~ user:missvain 12:57, 5 June 2006

You mean "did the park have" The zoo closed in 1997. I don't know the answer, but I would just change it to bison from buffalo. -- Usgnus 05:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They were never part of the zoo; rather up in the miniature train enclosure, like the wolves, I think. I know the petting zoo is closed; haven't taken the train in years but I imagine if victims-in-captivity are now banned in the park the buffalo/bison are gone too. From what I remember they were Wood Buffalo - a common name in Canada for the Woodland Bison (once common in the Cariboo and Chilcotin, by the way, but long hunted out and otherwise squeezed out by cattle ranch range needs, as with the mustangs of the Chilcotin).Skookum1 07:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry there (man, and I lived in Vancouver for quite some time too! Doh!). Thanks for the tip. Missvain 05:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC) user:missvain 1:48, 5 June 2006

My understanding is that buffalo is not found in North America; rather only bison. I doubt it was buffalo in the zoo. --Kmsiever 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They aren't found in nature in North America, but neither are monkeys, penguins, or kangaroos which were also at the zoo. It was probably a bison, but I think we'd have a hard time knowing for sure. Why not just leave it at the disambig page? -- TheMightyQuill 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you're right, but don't tell all the people living a lie in Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump... --Ds13 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Came looking for Pauline Johnson monument location, but...

Checking to see where it was; I thought it was over by Brockton Point, in behind the Totem Poles, but according to the Pauline Johnson article it's near Siwash Rock (which would be fitting; see my comments on Talk:Siwash Rock). So I went by the Parks Board website, but lo and behold not much in the way of a map or list of monuments and such; only the main "attractions". So the Nisei memorial, the Pauline Johnson monument, the Harding memorial, the Princess Sophie memorial (I think that's it; a certain shipping disaster), the Empress of Japan figurehead, Lumberman's Arch and more are not listed on either Wiki or the VPB site. Weird. Not even Beaver Lake is listed (OK, not quite a lake anymore but it used to have rowboats on it, doncha know?). The history of the ring road - the first paved road in British Columbia by the way, and paved for bicycle use, not cars, using the crushed material of the ancient shell midden of Qwhy-qwhy (Lumberman's Arch area), in the early 1890s - that's worth mentioning; I'll get the cites (in Alan Morley's book I think; if not then in Major Matthews)- and the building of Hawaiian/Mexican style palapa canopies as rain shelters around it, especially at Prospect Point; not to mention Lumberman's Arch....geez, this listing has made me realize how incomplete the article is....hmmmmm.....Skookum1 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I responded about the Pauline Johnson memorial at the Siwash Rock page, but apparently she's by the restaurant at Ferguson Point, (formerly the Teahouse, but now called something else). She requested to be buried within sight of Siwash, so even though she's a fair distance, it's still within view. (She also requested that no memorial be erected in her honour!) I haven't seen the monument, but have read that it's pretty obscured in an area taken over by raccoons. As for your other comments, I begun working on this, partly as a result of finding the same thing you did - the Park Board has diddly listing what's all in the park. I've begun a list, and hope to get it fairly complete at some point, ideally with a sentence explaining said attraction. I'm trying to expand this one to, with the view that Stanley Park could be a good featured candidate eventually, but in a narrative structue that couldn't possibly be comprehensive on all the crap that's in the park, ..er.., I mean, important historical artifacts.Bobanny 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

She's is just south of Third Beach, and a tad north of Ferguson up in the trees beside the road. A tad obscure but still quite noticeable. Last time I was there, someone had recently places fresh flowers. I should snap a pic of it next time I'm there. --Keefer4 09:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Deadman's Island

I moved this to its own page, partly because it's not technically part of the park, but also because there's other stuff to be added when I get a chance. For now, it's only a stub, but need not take up room here.Bobanny 19:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure the smallpox quarantine was the 1880s? It's stuck in my mind as the 1890s, or maybe that's in connection with a quarantine in Victoria in that decade. One thing that piqued my interest is that in a Central Canadian-written column a while ago there was particular date mentioned when Montreal became "the last major North American city to suffer a smallpox outbreak", and it was an 1890s date and I'd just read the stuff on smallpox in BC during the same period; but I guess from a Central Canadian perspective Victoria's still not a major city, and Vancouver wasn't until at least the 1960s (?). Aside from the 1880s-1890s issue (and I think it can be pinned down to exact dates/years) wasn't Deadman's Island also used for quarantine for the Spanish influenza outbreak here? Not that quarantine helped once the epidemic was already on the loose, just that health authorities tried to do something.Skookum1 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the official park board history book, written mostly from the minute books it seems (by Mike Steele, who did a couple other SP histories/guidebooks) and it says 1888 to 1890 for the quarantine "Pest House." I don't recall reading anything about a quarantine during the influence epidemic. That was 1918 I believe, and at that time, Theodore Ludgate had control of the island, having leased it from the feds for a saw mill. He cleared it, but went broke and his lease expired in 1924. Bobanny 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

recent edits

I just did a bunch of editing and thought I should explain myself a little and comment.

• First, I removed this:

The 111 Pegasus Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron paraded in the park around the time of the first world war. Without any context, it adds nothing to the article, IMO. The park was used for defense in both world wars, and something along those lines would probably be a good fit with this, but a line about why this squadron is significant needs to accompany it. (just checked the article and apparently it wasn't created til 1939. Bobanny 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

• There'll probably be more info on the recent storm stuff in the next few months, but please try and incorporate anything new into what's already here. Watch out for time-sensitive language, like "recently," "currently," etc., or else it sounds like a news report or blog, and this should be a little more long term. Also, check factual details carefully, like the number of trees. There's no basis for the claim that many thousands of trees were destroyed, although some news reports gave that impression, and generally used very emotionally charged language, things like how douglas firs were shattering the seawall like glass might make a good read with your morning coffee, but is it accurate? I also took out the fundraising campaign, because this isn't really the place for advertising.
• I put back the 16th best park in the world. It's cited, and it's not intended as an insult - that's actually impressive. Bobanny 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment re village memorials

Actually on:

A local historian has also suggested the appropriateness of memorials marking the sites of communities that were displaced in the making of the park at Lumbermen’s Arch (Whoi Whoi), Prospect Point (Chaythoos), Brockton Point, and Kanaka Ranch (at the foot of Denman Street), although a formal proposal has not been put forth.[38]

Jean Barman's "agenda" gets a bit tiresome, as well as her various gaffes and misfires; I'm gathering that the above list is taken from her book on the park, but her "big book" has stuff in it that gets quoted that's just, well, wrong. But you can get stuff published when you've got a bunch of degrees and a teaching desk out on Point Grey, even if you're wrong. Anyway, Chaythoos to my knowledge was never a village, and couldn't be (no beach); the cliff-face there is a spirit-place, inside of which lives the rainmaker spirit who guards the entry to the inlet; not a place that humans would or should live. Whoi-whoi, which is a really bad anglicization of what's more normally (from Maj. Matthews and closer to modern Squamish orthography) Qwhy-qwhy, meaning "masks", and was a bona fide village, albeit dedicated to ceremonial purposes and only a couple of "medicine elders" lived there year-round, including the last few who were turfed out in the 1920s or sometime since. Qwhy-qwhy's shell midden, comparable to the Great Marpole Midden, was excavated to crush its shell deposits in order to pave the original Ring Road (Vancouver's first pavement, and notably paved not for automobiles, but for bicycles, which were mainstream public and upper class transportation/recreation in the 1890s). Barman's "agenda" surfaces by her inclusion of the Cherry Orchard (Kanaka Rancherie) and the non-First Nations residents of Brockton Point (and presumably Deadman's Island and certain other places in the park); her books obsess over non-white settlers/citizens, going so far as to focus on Portuguese such as Joe Silvey while ignoring his neighbours and friends (i.e. those who weren't First Nation or Kanaka or mixed blood) as "less interesting" than the ones she wants us to find interesting (that non-white British Columbians supposedly stuck together, with groups like the Portuguese lumped into "non-white" for convenience....funny how she doesn't also examine how Scandinavians also intermarried and lived among natives...but they're too white to talk about, and besides we're all assimilated, too). Yes, the Kanaka Rancherie deserves commemoration (and its original houses and cherry trees should have been preserved - about where the boathouse on Lost Lagoon is) but in the reviews of her book it talked about it as though it was an Indian Reserve and Kanakas were treated as poorly as natives and Chinese yadayadayada...that they had been "forced" to live on Lost Lagoon. Nix. The Kanakas who were originally in the Cherry Orchard had chosen it as a good place themselves, and while it grew in size after the Gastown Riots of winter made Gastown proper uncomfortable for non-whites (including Seraphim Fortes, who was moved to English Bay because of all this) it's not as if the Kanakas were held in disrespect by other Gastownites (certainly potentially by newcomers from the East, who typically are those who engageed in anti-Indian, anti-Chinese etc behaviours, as in the preceding winter riots). Likewise with what I saw about what she wrote about Brockton Point, as if it were some kind of non-white ghetto created by forced exclusion from Gastown; what she can't prove or state with a bald face she'll achieve by imputation or insinuation; that there were others than non-whites on Brockton Point (Cornish, Welsh, German, Finns, Irish and others) doesn't faze her one bit; the thesis in her book as I saw it reviewed was that Brockton Point was for coloured people and that's why the squatters there were kicked out; because they were non-white. Nope, they got kicked out because they were squatters, and those that got kicked out included as many whites as non-whites. But in Jean Barman's world, the truth that was doesn't matter; the truth that she and other entrenched historians want to establish is the one that counts. Problem in BC is there's no real peer review on popular histories written by academic historians; Saltwater City, Kanaka, The West Beyond the West and countless other books by Barman and her colleagues are full of errors of judgement and/or fact that are beyond the ken of the copy editors and fact-checkers in their Toronto publishing houses (and in most Vancouver publishing houses, such few as remain); speculation based on knee-jerk political correctness is rampant in such work; such as Barman's allegation that Brockton Point was cleared of its squatters because they were non-whites. That's just crap, but she's got a Ph.D. and gets invited onto talk shows to talk about her ideas, while I don't (have a degree, or get invited onto talk shows...well, no, I do get invited onto talk shows, but that's a different topic)...just because someone has a degree and a teaching position and gullible publishers has nothing to do with whether they know what they're talking about or not.Skookum1 20:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am gonna get the midden/ring road in at some point, just haven't got around to it yet, and something more about Stanley Park squatters. In one respect, I agree with you that the issue of people living in the park is more about them being squatters rather than their race - race was a factor, but over-all, it was a mixed bag race-wise that was living there, and ill-treatment of non-whites didn't follow the same logic that you could apply to all park squatters. My beef is that people have always and continue to live in the park, and Barman's story ends in the 50s when the last squatter died. Every dry summer -- most recently 2003 and 2006 -- there's a bit of hysteria worked up in the Province letter to the editor section about how all those squatters need to be forcibly removed so that they don't burn the park down. Fat-cat American tourists smoking cigarettes in the park are never cause for concern.

As for the rest, are you sure she's not an ex-girlfriend of yours or something? The monument thing wasn't just me being a Barman lackey, but a device to mention that there were people living there until I can get something more about it in there. Barman's book on the park is as comprehensive on the subject as it should be, with loads of detail and research that won't be found elsewhere, and for that reason is the most authoritative publication on the subject thus far. You can disagree with her pc analysis, but it can't be dismissed as being wrong compared to other sources, because nothing else attempts to thoroughly treat the subject. The closest thing is this, which is far more indignant and pc and liberal white guilt-ridden than Barman, and it uses xw'ay xway, which presumably wouldn't sit well with you either by comments you've made elsewhere. Whoi Whoi is Maj. Mathews spelling, and Barman acknowledges that, and the other spellings, and gives a similar explanation for choosing that one as you do for preferring Squamish Nation as the title for that article. Whoi Whoi is also the one used by the park board and the Stanley Park Explorer, which, along with Mathews and Barman, makes it the most commonplace spelling.

Notwithstanding my comment above, race was definately a factor in evicting people from the park on racist grounds. Almost all traces of native occupancy were erased by a colonialist agenda that wanted to, and pretty much did, replace it with its own representation of indianness, like the totem poles and the Indian Village they were originally supposed to be part of at Lumberman's Arch, while all trace of Whoi Whoi was erased. As recently as the 80s, the first totem pole that was bought from the Queen Charlotte's, was replaced with a replica and lay rotting in the woods. The petroglyph rock too, apparently was a bit of an ordeal to have it shipped into the park from up north. You couldn't make this bizarre stuff up (neither could Barman), and it is racist and is all for the sake of having the inauthentic but lucrative tourist attraction that it is today (the totems are the biggest tourist draw in the province, apparently). To imply, as you seem to be, that Stanley Park has a history that cannot be characterized as racist is just wrong.

On a final note, I'm not that crazy about Barman's writing either (her PhD is in Education, not history, just to avoid being positional on the subject). But it's as good if not better than a lot of local histories, like Morley or Morton, that we have to work with. Bobanny 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

comment on recent storm damage

I've been following news updates on the damage to Stanley Park, and just thought I'd mention how wildly they differ. Numbers I've seen for trees knocked down or damaged are: unknown as of yet, hundreds, as many as a thousand, thousands, 3 thousand, and 20% of the trees in the forest. This last one, if we use the figure on the park board's website that estimates a total one million trees in the forest, would mean that 200,000 trees were destroyed. Nothing I've seen indicates that any systematic attempt has been made to estimate an actual number, or even that park staff have even got to all areas of the forest. These numbers come from guesses more than estimates, from aerial views and just browsing around at the damage by staff and/or journalists. (this is all from CanWest publications and the CBC website). Also, information coming from park staff may sound authoritative, especially from people who have worked there for years, but news accounts also mention how emotionally distraught they are, probably both because of the time and energy they've spent nurturing the forest and because so much of the planting and upkeep they've done for years has been erased. I haven't been to the park yet myself, but comparing to the old newspaper reports from the 1934/5 storms and the 1962 typhoon, this seems comparable. It was basically a logging camp after Typhoon Freda, and they sold all the wood to help pay for the clean-up. If you've walked through the forest, especially around the miniature railway, you can see how many jumbo trees were lost then. The media coverage this time, however, seems closer to the 1930s. The Province whipped up as much hysteria as possible, but it was the depression and the big concern then was finding the money to clean it up before it could became a major fire hazard. The goal of that campaign was to generate the political will from higher levels of government to finance the clean-up. Anyway, just thought I'd share, and make a note that even the #s used in this article should be taken with a grain of salt even though they are properly cited and come from seemingly credible sources. Bobanny 10:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bobanny and Skokum, Stanley Park is #1, not #16

Bobbany and Skokum - I believe my latest version is shorter, more precise, and more up to the point. It is not important to point out data that Stanley Park is 16th in the place. That's simply not true. I mean, the agency selected ugly Mexican park to be #1 in the world, and that park doesn't even have 1/3 of features and beauty of Stanley Park. The agency has discredited itself and we should not quote it. How can one put ugly, dirty, Mexican park on #1 place and Stanley Park on the 16th place? It's ridicolous. I strongly oppose information from discredited agencies to be included into Stanley Park article. I've been in Mexico and seen the ugly dirty park they selected as "#1 Park in the World", and it can't even be compared with our Stanley Park. Don't include that info, as by doing that - you are only insulting the most beautiful park in the Universe (Stanley Park!). Bosniak 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

First, if you have issues with the ranking thing, you don't have to revert all the other changes that have been made. Be specific: what's unnecessary detail of those changes? Spacing the photos better? Copyediting? Which historical details that have been added do you think are irrelevant? Or do you really give a shit? As for the ranking, it's not a pissing contest or a beauty pageant. That group has specific criteria that isn't about how pretty the park is, and the wikilink and footnote are both there so people can see what their agenda and criteria are and decide if it's a valuable ranking. I'm not hung up on that link, and wasn't the one that put it there. But out of respect to others' efforts, there should at least be a valid reason for removing it, and what you've expressed has nothing to do with it's inclusion. There's nothing more boring than a park article that says it's the biggest and prettiest in the universe. This isn't a tourism website. And yes, I realize the 3 revert rule is 24 hours, which is why I said to think about the spirit of the rule as the important thing. You haven't engaged in good faith with myself or others on this article, and I will continue to treat such thoughtless reversions as acts of vandalism and bad faith. If I am wrong on this, then address the points raised by myself and others rather than authoritatively asserting your personal judgements as if that decides Wikipedia content. Bobanny 07:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Park Causeway

While writing my new additions, it occurred to me that there are a couple of other things in the park worth separate articles on (below), but quickly to suggest here that Stanley Park Causeway is as much a vanished-structure article, or at least a lengthy one; it used to be a trestle, with the streetcar right over, I think, to a loop where the big oak came down during the windstorm; the use of the term for the road to the Lions Gate only came into use once that got built, of course; but as a material object and term it has a long history, and sort of falls into the Bridges of Vancouver category, no?Skookum1 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

xway xway

Which is apparently the correct Skwxwu7mesh spelling (no caps, although the article title will come out that way), so Whoi whoi, Qwhy qwhy, hyphenated or otherwise and anything else, should all redirect there. I popped by the page because of various conversations with User:OldManRivers today, just to check to see if there was already Whoi whoi or whatever, as he's about to start xway xway to go with xwemelch'tsn and st'a7mes (sta7mes?) and other articles about his peoples' villages/locations. That's why I got distracted and added to the Lumberman's Arch thing; speaking of which I'll dig up a picture of the original temple-style arch, because it was pretty cool (as were a lot of the old parade arches, which could use an article at some point).Skookum1 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, we seem to have the same brain pattern, since I just made edits to the history section only to find your comments were written here at the same time. - TheMightyQuill 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note this kind of information. I knew a bit of the history of how it was stolen and everything, but that kind of specifics is interesting to note. I wasn't sure about August Jack's death, but he still might of been born at xwayxway for what ever reason. (They were journeying somewhere, he had family there, or something). OldManRivers

A good online source for this is Susan Mather's MA thesis: One of Many Homes: Stories of Dispossession from "Stanley Park". I find it a little hokey, but it has tons of research and is fairly comprehensive. She draws from the court transcripts in the 1920s trials to evict the so-called squatters, which is a good oral history source. Bobanny 00:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than rock garden and Nisei garden...

There were a couple of other things that occurred to me here....hmmmm - oh yeah, apparently all the flowering cherry that's all over Vancouver was a 1920s or 1910s donation to the city from the government of Japan, also a lot of the Japanese maple (cite is in Morley, maybe Matthews, possibly MacDonald's Visual History also). That seems worthy of an article although I'm not sure what to call it. As for the rock garden and Nisei garden, perhaps the rose garden and certain other "landscaping objects" need their own histories/descriptions (Ceperley Park used to be a gravel isthmus between the shore of the West End and the shore of Stanley Park, and had "wash" over it at high tide...), as also things like the rowing club and yacht clubs. Is Brockton Oval an article? It should be.Skookum1 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that there's a List of attractions and monuments in Stanley Park that I created so that this article wouldn't become too unwieldy. A good source for the park's contents (though not perfect, especially on history) is this national historic site research document. Also I added refs for the rockery. The Courier had a big article on it last summer, long before the storm exposed it. It's a good rag, and all online, for local stuff, and regularly has local history-based articles. Bobanny 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Lord Stanley/indigenous occupants

Not to disagree, but to point out that also at the time of Stanley's declaration it had been military preserve since 1859 (or 1858? - but I think it was '59 and will get back on that) when Moody, Moberley, Burnaby et al. did the first land survey of the inlet and Ulxsen (the Vancouver peninsula, aka sometimes Burrard Peninsula although to me that term means downtown and SP only)), part of which involved the setting aside of military reserves, of which Stanley Park was one and most of the others are where they wound up at (Point Grey, Jericho, etc. - I was gonna do a map to go with a hoped-for article) on the Military Clique Lands Scandal, which is the best I can come up with for a title for the occasion as there was no press around to tag it with one. the "clique" terminology is from what they were called in the Island's Assembly; the other surveys were private allocations taken by military brass (all of the above, plus Admiral Baynes and others, and all were reverted and resurveyed and allocated into the basis of the land divisions since (though Burnaby did get a big chunk...only some of what's now Burnaby instead of all of it). As far as I can tell, though, all the military reserves set aside stood for years; these are now Lighthouse Park, Cates Park, Pacific Spirit Park/UEL, Stanley Park, some patch of the Port Moody waterfront - maybe the park at the head of the harbour (forgotten its name just now) and others. Anyway, I'd add this to the article but habitually avoid complicated topics, i.e. when needing to summarize them; the point is that the Lands Act of 1858 (or whatever its official title is), which established land law in the province and was caught up in one of the biggest scandals of the early colony (though nowhere near the only one, and one which has been hushed up since with pioneer/hero-worship, like so many other scandals), was when Stanley Park was made a military reserve, presumably under the effective command of Moody at first and I'm not sure who after that - "senior military officer in the colony" is the usual term, and seems to have excluded the Royal Navy because doesn't Rear-Admiral outrank Colonel? Anyway, whatever you could clip out of this that could mention the military reserve, again in spite of obvious native occupancy and spiritual signficance all over the ying-yang at the time, that was established in 1859, which was what Lord Stanley turned over to park in whatever year it was. BTW attention Keefer or Bobanny who're probably reading this - the old palapas that used to stand around the Stanley Park ring road at viewpoints and as rain shelters, e.g. Prospect Point and elsewhere - are almost worth an article, and the pictures are PD even under US copyright rules (pre-1907 should be fine, huh?.Skookum1 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your favourite, Jean Barman, gets into the politics around designating the military reserves, but I just skimmed past that part. My atlas (Derek Hayes, Historical Atlas of Vancouver) probably has something on the military reserves in the area besides SP. An interesting bit of trivia noted by Major Mathews is that Lord Stanley's back yard in England was bigger than Stanley Park. Bobanny 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Does she give some kind of sobriquet/title for it? Just looking for something less awkward sounding; just Military Lands Scandal (British Columbia) (w/wo the BC) might do... - or not?Skookum1 07:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Morley is just kind of glib about it but at least talks about it; the Akriggs dont mention it at all, I don't know about Ormsby but it's in Kerr and I'd imagine Begg; and you'd think Bancroft would be all over it, given his apparently critical nature towards British rule and rulers. I don't recall anything in Matthews, but there's so much in there about so many things I couldn't say for sure if there was or not. There's no mention in MacDonald's Pictorial History, where I was hoping to find a map of the military reserves; AFAIK they were the same as now, roughly, relative to whatever they've become since (Jericho, Point Grey, Stanley Park, etc; I think Greer's Beach may have been, but that lapsed at some point as the CPR tried to get it out from under Sam Greer, the guy who stood up to them and who's why we have a beach there today; otherwise it'd be big nasty docks and Kits would be, well, like Yaletown used to be, or the main waterfront on the inlet...senakw or however it's spelled might have become, I think, military reserve before it became park, or some kind of non-Indian reserve, but there was some politics I know with it when the building of the Burrard Bridge came into play, so maybe it's the Coast Guard station that was the military land there, rather than August Jack's place/senakw (OMR?).Skookum1 06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of lords, estates, and the stately houses that go with them, Minnekhada Provincial Park/Minnekhada Regional Park, whichever it is, should probably have a separate article; the house itself is even in a non-BC style and AFAIK was the first real "lordly" house on the Mainland, other than those in Shaughnessy and Blueblood Alley (which didn't come with as much real estate) - other than Government House in New West, though, I guess. Point is it was a G-G's residence, and the name is Abenaki or Anishinabe or something, rather than from a local language; not that well-known but the estate and house are distinctive and notable There's other big estates around the Valley maybe worth mention, similar in nature/history to Ashcroft Manor and the Coldstream and Fintry etc.; I'll give it some thought and try and come up with a short list. One, on the margins of the category, is All Hallows (house) in Yale, which was Onderdonk's residence and then became the premiere girls' school on the Mainland for a number of decades; with native girls studying right alongside white ones. It's a campground/trailer park now I think....Skookum1 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW you might want to look up a Pelican/Penguin book called The Making of the English Lanscape, can't remember the author; once I read it, it became easier to udnerstand/perceive historical geography/landscapes around here, including the indulgences of English landscaping, which sought to perfect nature to parkland, lawns, organized gardens meant to look wild, etc. SP has been affected by that, prodigiuosly, as has the whole cty....

I looked in my atlas and there's a bit there. It was the Pre-emption Act of 1860 that got them moving. He doesn't discuss it in scandalous terms the way Barman does (I think she was making a point about the dubious legal claim to SP, and no, I don't recall her naming the scandal). I'd suggest slotting it in the Richard Moody article (I didn't know there was one til I looked it up just now, and tagged it and made some redirects). James Morton's other history book is about Stamp and Moody, and I believe Eric Nicol has a book on Moody as well, if you're headed to VPL sometime you could check those out. From the bit that Hayes writes about this, it appears that in Vancouver, only SP and Jerry's Cove were military/naval reserves, and much of the rest were simply "government reserves" (Granville townsite, much of what would become the CPR land grant, Hastings townsite, Point Grey).

Please see [this on OldManRivers' talkpage]. As for Point Grey, it was military land when it was given over to UBC after the Great March, and of course had been a base in the Great War and Second War, too, I think; hence the submarine towers...Skookum1 09:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the 1860 ref in Morley now; I was remembering 1859 because that's when the survey was done; remember also that this was before there was even any thought of Indian Reserves.Skookum1 09:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On the landscaping thing, I've read bits on that sort of thing, not for a while though. What makes SP distinct from other large urban parks is that it wasn't designed and laid out by a landscape architect (Frederick Law Olmsted was the big cheese in that dept.), so it's kind of a hodge podge of English fads and laissez-faire. L.A. Hamilton was big into that stuff, and I believe he's responsible for those little "pictureseque" bridges that dot the park. The Grey squirrels that are now everywhere are descended from a present from Central Park so that SP would have the correct type of park animals. I think much of that thinking still underlies urban environmental design/management. It's truly mind-boggling how much resources are spent trying to keep SP "natural," usually in spite of nature. Bobanny 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Park Ring Road/Park Drive (Stanley Park

Just to note that like the Causeway this is definitely a historic/notable road article; it was the first pavement in British Columbia (for bicycles, twenty years before cars were common) and was paved, as I've probably said elsewhere, by the crushed clamshells of the xwayxway midden; when the road was bulit there were still people living in houses in the midst of the old village when the crews arrived to dismantle the midden and demolish houses to build the road, with the old woman who lived there screaming at the foreman, who just shrugged her off and laughed at her (as humorously told by the recountant, possibly Matthews but I can't recall exactly). I know that, long after this, there were still one or two elders who lived in those houses now occupied by park staff, just in the Brockton Oval and/or Lumberman's Arch area; part of a deal over it long ago or something; but the remains of xwayxway are the base/foundation of the Stanley Park Ring Road, as it was at first called, now officially Park Drive but I think I remember seeing the old sign when I was a kid. Should the monkey cages/seal pool get a buildings entry, by the way? Kind of unusual, as well as stinky; but then the same goes for the general architecture of the whole pool/aquarium area, and architectural items on the heritage buildings in the park are probably worthwhile at some point; there's a separate artcle on Malkin Bowl, surely?Skookum1 01:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The history that I knew of was, the government came into the village of xwayxway, said "You can stay here for now, but once you die, that's it. Everyone as to leave, but only if you've been living here can you stay." The last one was the Aunt Sally (Sexwalia is the name I know her as). She was the last person to live there. OldManRivers 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aunt Sally was the only one with documentation showing continuous residence in the park (going back to 1860 I believe) at the 1920s eviction trials. I believe the government took a harder stance and moved to evict at that time (despite the "you can live there til you die" promise) because there was a lot of development for sports facilities and tourist traps. As of the more tragically bizarre expressions of colonialism, the initial proposal for the x'way x'way site was to erect a replica Indian village there.

There was another person, a half-white blind guy (name escapes me right now) who was allowed to live in the park til he died in the 1950s (I don't remember exactly where). After he died, Major Mathews fought to prevent his shack from being demolished, and succeeded for about 5 years, while he lobbied for it to be turned into a museum. Jean Barman (Stanley Park's Secret) paints this as a typical injustice. But from the newspaper articles I've looked at, Squamish leaders opposed the idea, partly because his "Indianness" was in question, but also because it was a rickety, run-down shack, not conducive to a positive representation of the Squamish people, which seems a reasonable objection to me. Apparently the only acceptable native presence was either as a museum exhibit showing a dying people, or a fabricated memorial of a people already lost to history. Bobanny 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Guns for the Skwxwu7mesh

No other contact was recorded for decades, until around the time of the Crimean War when British admirals arranged with Squamish Chief Joe Capilano that in the case of an invasion, the British would defend the south shore of Burrard Inlet and the Squamish would defend the north.[9] According to Capilano’s daughter, the British gave him and his men 60 muskets, which were the first guns owned by natives on the BC coast. Although the attack anticipated by the British never came, the guns were used by the Squamish to repel an attack by an Indigenous raid from the north. Stanley Park was not attacked but this was the beginning of it being considered a strategic military location by the British.[10]

This seems very wrong to me; perhaps the first guns in the Gulf of Georgia, but guns were already traded on the Coast elsewhere in the time of the marine fur trade (1780s-1790s); it may be that the Cowichan-area peoples were not supplied with guns from Fort Victoria but it seems unlikely, though still possible (for the fort's security); but on the BC Coast isn't quite right, despite Capilano's daughter's testimony. "An indigenous raid from the North" would be better specified - Euclataws (Laich-kwil-tach probably, but maybe Haida or even Tongass Tlingits or whomever. Also, the beginning of it being considered a strategic military location dates back to Captain Vancouver, who noted the coal seams on what were then the bluffs flanking what was named by him Coal Harbour (even though those bluffs were not on the Stanley Park peninsula itself - then a near-island of course); its status as a military reserve can be dated to 1860 or 1859 when Point Grey, Point Atkinson, Cates Park and areas around Port Moody were similarly designated under the colony's new land law.Skookum1 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I added that bit from an old newspaper article by Andrew Paull that I found and thought it was interesting/significant because it predates the standard written accounts of local military history. The Crimean War was from 1853-1856; the Coal Harbour/coal seam discovery was by Captain Richards in his 1858-9 surveys. His original map (1859) has a "Proposed Govern't Reserve 170 acres," but that was downtown, to the west of Main St. Three government reserves show up on a map from 1863 (and on later maps) that include Stanley Park (of the maps in Hayes, "Historical Atlas of Vancouver"). As for the other details, first guns, etc., you may be right, but note the passage is attributed to Capilano's daughter rather than stated as an encyclopedic fact (and the article didn't mention who the invaders were). I think it can stand as is pending further research/coroboration with that disclaimer. bobanny 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hudson's Bay Company definitely traded guns before 1853. They traded with all the Sto:lo who were living in desperate fear of the Laich-kwil-tach (as Skookum said) who had received guns from ship-based traders from Boston. The 60 muskets might be correct, but they weren't the first on the coast. I'll remove that bit. - TheMightyQuill 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not the first. The Nuu-chah-nulth with Maquinna also had guns. They traded some of them with the 'Namgis. OldManRivers 18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reason "Indigenous" has a capital "I"? Is that a typo or has it a political reason? --Vancouver robin 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to lower case. bobanny 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Try to get this to GA?

I've just read this article for the first time just now and it looks good. With a little more work it could surely get to Good Article level. Maybe it needs more references for some of the unreferenced statements. If anyone else wants to help work towards a GA I would be happy to help as well, for example by trying to track down some more references. Moisejp (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. I'd be interested in getting more information on the theft from the local natives, the families that once lived in their, and other local indigenous history. Jean Barman's book "Stanley Park Secrets" is a decent book for this, plus a few news articles and other books out there. Not much in this subject, but enough to make a decent inclusion of the actual landowners of that "park" (POV, I know...haha). Anyways, I'm game for collaborating. OldManRivers (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I'm going to work on including:

• All the villages that existed in the park at one time and resource gathering sites plus Skwxwu7mesh language names for those places.
• History pre-contact of villages. Xwayxway is particularly important
• Cultural modified trees. These are found in the park and show that it was a good site for gathering lots of things.
• Post-contact history of the villages. Lots of potlatching in Xwayxway.
• History of the families that once lived in their.
• The theft and removal of the people.
• Presently (Susan Point, Museuam, Squamish, and I think Tseil-waututh just opened a new Coast Salish house posts. Pretty neat since it's the first Coast Salish art to be placed in the park. All it has is those crappy "Totem Poles".

This should be enough work for me to work out...haha OldManRivers (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I will just go ahead and try to find some references for more of the information bit by bit as I get a chance. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sḵwx̱wú7mesh means Squamish

I am slightly amused but also disturbed to see the Squamish language word "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" used as if it were an English language word. "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh" uses characters from a non-English alphabet. Its alphabet was developed using modified characters from the Roman alphabet in order to create an alphabet for the Squamish language. The use of "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh", and other non-English words, in the body of an English-language sentence is nonsense and completely illogical. When we want to refer to Russia, should we write Россуя ? Or for Dubai, do we write دبيّ‎ ? When we want to mention Beijing, should we write 北京 ? Of course not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdrinkwater (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is addressed on the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh discussion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.117.206 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Military History of Stanley Park WWI & WWII

In regards to the military history section. Here are the sources

^ Moogk, Peter N. (1978), Vancouver Defended. A History of the Men and Arms of the Lower Mainland Defences, 1859 - 1949., Vancouver: Antonson Publishing, ISBN 0919900267

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/ahqr-rqga/ahq001.pdf

http://www.northamericanforts.com/Canada/bc.html#van

I was going to add them to the referances, but that shows up as a list ad I didn't want to muck up someones elses work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinPark (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction: mounted police?

Is it just me or does the following sentence: "There are approximately 200 kilometres (120 mi) of trails and roads in the park, which are patrolled by the Vancouver Police Department's equine mounted squad.[7]" lead one to make the conclusions that: a) the park is only patrolled by the equine mounted squad; and/or b) the equine mounted squad is a constant presence in the park? And is this fact even important enough to warrant inclusion in the article's introduction, which presumably outlines the most important things about the park? Do people think a re-wording would be appropriate? MsBatfish (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't a city park normally be patrolled by the city police? What's notable about this?

Not sure who to address this to since they didn't sign their question. I am not sure exactly what you are asking. Are you asking why the statement "...patrolled by the Vancouver Police Department's equine mounted squad" is there in the first place? I am assuming that the editor who wrote that must have thought that it was notable because they are equine mounted police (cops on horses) as opposed to regular police (in cars, on foot, or riding bicycles). Anyone else have any help with my question? If no one responds I guess I'll go ahead and attempt to re-write it or remove it. Thanks MsBatfish (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

{{convert}} template results in non-Canadian English

I was going to depluralize "paved 22 kilometres" but it's the result of the {{convert}} template, which apparently is formatted for some other countries' version of metric usage; if that's the case then a Canadian version is needed; that shouldn't be plural, not in the Canadian English I speak or read, anyway. At least it's -re and not -er.Skookum1 (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, adding |sp=us will give the Canadian spelling. The Interior (Talk) 18:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm yeah that's odd, given the US uses "kilometer".....but abbreviating "mi" without the period "mi." is also odd; what's the obsession with using templates anyway, when plain old typing things out is, well, human, and allows for more proper variation of idiom?Skookum1 (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Cause it does the math for you, silly! The Interior (Talk) 18:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Convert template is "calculator" and "abbreviation clerk" but also "precision wizard" and "typesetter" and "speller": I understand that using Template:Convert can be somewhat cryptic at times, but several editors have noted that hand-written conversions are often wrong, and have noted the various wrong examples over the past years. It seems a key aspect of wiki-reality is that people just don't "do the math" and when the conversions are hand-coded, then they are often updated to the wrong numbers when changed. Beyond the calculations, {Convert} also acts as an "abbreviation clerk" such as putting "mi" for miles because the dotted abbreviation "mi." is becoming rare in modern American/Canadian, Australian or UK culture. There is also "60 miles per hour (97 km/h)" where many people think "km/h" should be "kph". For special abbreviations, use {Convert} option "disp=out" such as for U.S. horsefeed bags marked as "50#" (pounds):

• bag marked 50# ({{convert|disp=out|50|lb|kg}}) → bag marked 50# (23 kg)

The next major role of {Convert} is to act as a 'precision wizard' for cases which most people would not likely know, such as miles+yards to km:

• {{convert|4|mi|95|yd|km}} → 4 miles 95 yards (6.524 km)

How many users would know to use 4-digit precision for yards with km? Then another function of {Convert} is to typeset a conversion, where the number and unit are "joined" by ' ' so they do not wrap separately at end-of-line, and to wikilink the unit symbols: {{convert|67|kPa|lk=on}} as "67 kilopascals (9.7 psi)". {Convert} can also spell numbers as words: {{convert/spell|642|mi}} as "six hundred and forty-two miles (1,033 km)" where many people forget how to spell "forty". For all those reasons, {Convert} can improve the quality of conversions, in accuracy, clerical terms, precision, and typesetting of wrapping or wikilinks to over 350 unit names. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm an older person, and more and more and more conventional written and other culture is being turned into programming language; it's not easy to use - maybe for you it is - and cumbersome as a user. And my further point is "why is "miles" abbreviated when "kilometres" is not? The style of abbreviation was a secondary issue to that.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Although it might seem cumbersome, years of analysis have proven that a macro scripting language, such as with Template:Convert, can be very efficient for controlling the content, format, and access to text and data. Decades ago people imagined icon-based menus would eliminate textual data, but now, there is even phone-based "txting" which has created a subcultural language, similar to Leet. The abbreviation of "miles" helps to appease some vocal users who despise conversions in curved brackets "(__)" as being too long even when abbreviated. The option "abbr=on" can be used to show all symbols, such as for kilometres. -Wikid77 08:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Brings to mind the line "I have seen the future, and I do not like it". That being said, I can't write longhand anymore. The other consequence of automated scripting of language is errors like the one here, which substituted an incorrect use of the language...unless you knew how to fiddle with the code. You may think that's no big deal; but technology's affect on the language, and Wikipedia's overweening influence on language usage, whether by the results of such templates or the relentless application of WP:MOS without reference to real language, is increasingly very, very strange and disturbing.Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Beyond the use of {Convert}, the vast rule-set being expanded by wp:MOS has been noted by many people as very strange and disturbing, plus several people working on wp:MOS pages are extremely resistant to realize there is almost no broad consensus for many of the invented rules which they have been trying to force on other people. During extensive discussions to remove excessive rules from wp:MOS pages, several people have barked that numerous other people "do not have consensus" to oppose the wp:MOS rules, even when the dissenters outnumber the so-called consensus supporters. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know all about MOSites......MOSHYPHEN and MOSDASH were the subject of a very protracted dispute over the double-name forms of Regional districts of British Columbia which I finally "won" by providing the regulations attached to their enabling legislation from 1966-67, i.e. the law that created them, thanks to a letter and attached document provided by the Office of the Counsel-General of British Columbia, who govern the official styleguide used in legislation and government publications. I won't go into it, but it was a pain in the ass and a case of MOSAMUCK, MOS run amuck with no regard to reality or a very-informed-on-the-subject editor (me). Another MOS issue that's affecting the language at large is the abuse of the lower-case rule; again won't go into it. Seems MOSites have very much a sense of WP:OWN about their bailiwick, and as with many classes of users, I have to wonder if they ever actually write articles only spend time playing orthography games.....'nuff said, I need lunch.Skookum1 (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

old photos of the Pavilion from the British Library collection

This is a montage and the full-size/largest image would need to be downloaded and cropped, but these are very nice old pictures of the Pavilion when it was first built.

.Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Re RE survey - two surveys

Re this: "Despite the growing number of homes, the Stanley Park peninsula was designated as a military reserve in the early 1860s in a survey conducted by the Royal Engineers." There's a story and a half behind that, and the survey was in question was 1860 and it was one of the first, or was the first, undertaken after the passage of the Lands Act that year. In Vancouver: From Milltown to Metropolis by Alan Morley (Terry Morley?) there's a passage about it. Two in fact. Maybe in Matthews somewhere too, come to think of it. The Chief of the Burrards confronted the survey crew when they were in the Westridge-Capitol Hill area or so, telling them to clear off, whoever it was that was in charge of the survey crew was a high colonial official, don't think it was Trutch, maybe Burnaby, can't remember, turned around and emancipated the chief's slaves, thereby bankrupting and humiliating him. That's the one story. The other is that in laying out all the lots of what is now most of the GVRD, key points of land were indeed chosen as "prime" - namely Point Grey/UEL, Point Atkinson/Lighthouse Park, Stanley Park/Burrard Peninsula, Cates Park, Belcarra Park, Burnaby Mountain Park, but they were originally military reserves, they were pre-empted in the name of the military officials presiding over the survey, mostly RE but also including Rear-Admiral Baynes. There was no newspaper in Victoria yet, but when word reached the Island colonies' capital there was a lot of angry chatter about the "military clique" taking the best land for itself....even the lands system in BC was born in scandal, y'see. Under pressure from Victoria society, and the Governor "who was not impressed", those lands were given over to military reserve.....and that's why they became military reserve, and while yes they were military strategic for sure consider that those "private" pre-emptors could have made tidy sums leasing "their" land to the RN or other arms of the military.....I don't have Morley's book or Matthews' either....there must be some academic writing about it somewhere, maybe older stuff, not sure....most land history in BC is snakey...in this case involving the whole military elite, some of whom were also colonial cabinet ministers.Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Skookum1, How do you feel about adding something in the article where it talks about this to the effect of: "both the US and the UK were vying for the control of Vancouver, before it became part of a new Canada." The points you raised are more detailed background than the article needs, but I think after reading your points and the article that its missing something about why it was so necessary to protect New Westminster. Rhild (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's way to boiled-down a wording....especially because the name Vancouver wasn't applied to the city until 18 years after the formation of Canada, and 14 years after BC joined it. Coming up with a passage about why military positions were needed I'll have to consider; New Westminster itself was chosen as a military position, a replacement for the very vulnerable original Fort Langley (at Derby not at the current site; once the RE were in town nearly everything had a military side to it, such is the nature of Empire.Skookum1 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am fine now. I just re-read the article and there is something already in there about the US threat. FYI I added a map today showing the location of the WW2 forts, which is kind of interesting.rhild (talk) 19:34 August 2013 (PST)

For more on this topic, take a look at: http://vanarchive.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/history-of-squatting-in-vancouver/. Rhild (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Another good source of information (an academic article): http://www.cathedralgrove.eu/media/01-4-stanley-mawani.pdf Rhild (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

updated Stanley Park page

I overhauled the page using much of the same content and adding some from recent sources. It took me several days because there was quite a lot of outdated and misleading information that I wanted to confirm before determining what I should do with it. I am a technical writer by trade, so I felt up to the task. I also was a substantive editor for several years doing similar work. I think there is room now for a few more pics, some of which I might be able to add after a good break, unless someone beats me to it. There is a better shot of the village in coal harbour, for example, and a photo of army women who were trained at third beach in ww2. Anyway, I hope the new organization will make it easier to add content in the future.rhild (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2013 (PST)

gardens

I took out the following fairly unimportant passage under "monuments":

Small gardens are also a common form of commemoration in the park. A monument to the Nisei of British Columbia immediately west of the aquarium is accompanied by a planting of Japanese maple and flowering cherry and other plants from Japan.

I removed it because in the syntax there is a question about whether this is even a memorial as suggested by the lead in sentence. Also, the lead in sentence has a citation that basically says nothing about gardens. I am leaving it here in case someone wants to correct it in the future.rhild (talk) 19:30 August 2013 (PST)

References

Removed Gallery

I had some feedback that the gallery was not appropriate for a Good Article, so I have removed it and am placing it here for now. (There are so many great pictures also available on Wikicommons, including all these ones shot by a professional photographer in 1912: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rosetti_Studios_Stanley_Park_Collection). Anyway, just keeping the pictures here so we have some record of what was on the page.Rhild (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of these pictures are now on the list of attractions and monuments page.Rhild (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Sunset in Stanley Park
• 
  Snow in Coal Harbour
• 
  Vancouver Rowing Club building, which opened in 1911
• 
  Lions Gate Bridge with Stanley Park in the background
• 
  Canadian Geese on Lost Lagoon with Downtown Vancouver in background
• 
  Nine O’Clock Gun firing
• 
  Vancouver's iconic cruise ship terminal from Brockton Point
• 
  Deadman Island from Stanley Park
• 
  Prospect Point, a popular lookout site situated at the highest point in Stanley Park
• 
  Siwash Rock, a commonly told version of its legend is told in the classic book Legends of Vancouver
• 
  Third Beach looking west over the Pacific Ocean
• 
  Beaver Lake
• 
  Downtown Vancouver from Stanley Park at low tide
• 
  Park Ranger (1888–1896) Henry Avison feeding a bear
• 
  "Fisherman's Cove" settlement in Coal Harbour in 1886
• 
  Homes on Deadman Island at the turn of the 20th century
• 
  Terminal City Cycling Club at the reservoir near Prospect Point in 1892
• 
  Ceremony at Pauline Johnson's grave in 1922
• 
  Second Beach in 1912
• 
  Seven Sisters in 1912
• 
  Hollow Tree in 1906
• 
  Hollow Tree in 2012
• 
  One of the large trees knocked down in the 2006 windstorm
• 
  Logging operation at Prospect Point, the area most damaged by the 2006 windstorm.
• 
  Evidence of 1860s logging is visible on notched tree stumps in the park
• 
  Statue of Scottish poet, Robert Burns
• 
  Totem poles.
• 
  Totem poles near Brockton Point
• 
  Totem poles with North Shore mountains in the background
• 
  Otters holding hands at the Vancouver Aquarium

Removed Line in Monuments

"Just west of the Nine O’Clock Gun there is a plaque commemorating these communities." (Dont know if this is true. Because I've never seen it and there was no citation. Rhild (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC))

Comments on article

Pictures"

• It would be preferable for the infobox pic to show the whole of the park (as opposed to a beach that shows mostly water and no park). An aerial photo would be the best.
• Overall, I think there's a good balance of pics (not too many, but enough to give a good idea of the entirety of the park).
• However, some large pics (i.e. [File:City of Vancouver Canadian Pacific town site 1887.jpg]) can be scaled down. 400px is a bit too big.
• By reducing the size of the map, you could shift Lord Stanley's pic up to the top of the "Opening and dedication" section. That way, there might be enough space to fit a pic of the 9 O'Clock Gun below.

Lead

• "…and which is almost entirely surrounded by waters of the Pacific Ocean." – reword to "and is almost entirely surrounded by the Pacific Ocean"
• "became a military reserve in the mid-1800s, when British Columbia was colonized" – change to "became a military reserve in the mid-1800s after BC was colonized"
• "Shortly after, when the city was established in 1886, the land was turned into Vancouver's first park." – reword to "The land was converted into Vancouver's first park shortly after the establishment of the city in 1886"
• "Designated a national historic site in 1988" – should be capitalized and wikilinked to National Historic Site of Canada, since this is a formal title.
• "as densely forested as it was in the late 1800s" – add "back", so "as it was back in the late 1800s"
• "are as many as hundreds of years old"
• "century old" – hyphen needed
• "which can draw up to thousands of residents and visitors" – should be "which can draw up to a thousand residents and visitors"

More comments to come. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay - I have addressed your comments and did another round of edits to simplify the language throughout. I tried to cut down the word count because I think it was suffering from wordiness; therefore, where you have asked to insert words, I carefully evaluated the suggestion to see if it could be said with fewer words. If it could, I chose to chop. I am a tech writer, and fewer words is always our preference. P.S. I am not going to have time to add anymore pics after today, unless there is a burning need for one. I changed some of the pics from the last time you read it because I felt they weren't quite right, but I am happy with where we are now (thanks in part to your comments!). Any more edits? Cheers, Rhild (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanley Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 18:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Rhild

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The grammar is fine, and copyright law is respected, but the prose still has problems. In particular, there are many single-sentence or two-sentence paragraphs throughout the article, and these should be rare or non-existent. Some sections, such as "Leasing the land", read like a list.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A lead should summarize all the main sections of the article. This lead does not do that. Also, a lead should contain no more than four paragraphs. In addition, sections of text in this article are bolded for no clear reason.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references section seems fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The citations given do not always cover the material in the article. For example, note 49 does cover the fact that there were 115 km winds and that 60% of the western edge was damaged, but it doesn't mention Prospect Point at all. For another example, none of the information cited by note 42 could be found at the source.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some statements have no source, and appear to be OR. (For example, the claim that "Baby Beluga" was inspired by one of the whales at the aquarium is unsourced. Some direct quotes, such as "The park lost some of its oldest trees through major storms twice in the last century and then again in 2006", have no clear source.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All main topics are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some of the sections on history go into far more detail than one would expect, especially since the "Today" section is relatively short. Consider making a separate History of Stanley Park article with most of this detail, and summarizing it here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality problems.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems with stability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Most of the images are fine, but a few have problems. If we don't know who the creator of File:HMS Discovery 1789 Vancouver.jpg was or when it was created, then we can't say for sure that it's in the public domain. Similarly, the date for File:Stanley Park Zoo black bear.jpg is given as "1900s". That doesn't make it clear if the photo was created before 1949. Finally, for File:StormDamageThreatensSP.jpg, the photo is PD, but the newspaper article text might not be; it depends on the year of death of the author, and we don't know that.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Almost. The only nitpick is that captions only need full stops when they are complete sentences. Captions like "Stanley Park's popular miniature railroad" should not have a full stop.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article has several problems that will need to be resolved before it can attain GA status.

I'll leave this nomination on hold and open for a week. If the problems are resolved in that time, then it will pass; otherwise it will fail. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there has been no activity to resolve these issues, I am closing this nomination as "not passing". If you resolve the issues listed above, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation

A move will need a discussion and community consensus. The fact that the park is a major landmark, recently ranked as one of the top parks in the world, would seemingly allow it to fall well within WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when it comes to disambiguation. I think a discussion should be had and not be unilaterally moved without consensus. Thanks, Mkdw^talk 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Stanley Park (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stanley 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930171025/http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/parks/stanley/nature.htm to http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/parks/parks/stanley/nature.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Location of Guns During First World War

I noticed that the photograph of the batteries in Stanley Park from 1914 were mislabelled as being placed at Ferguson Point. The guns during the First World War were placed at Siwash Point, the picnic area that used to be above Siwash Rock. The original source information for the photograph from the City of Vancouver Archives is mislabelled. It contradicts the information in Peter Moogk's book, Vancouver Defended, and Park Board correspondence and minutes from the City Archives that describe the guns as being located at the picnic grounds above Siwash Rock.

I was going to contact the archives to verify the mislabelled photo before making any changes. Thoughts? --Skheraj (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I contacted the City of Vancouver Archives and presented the information that shows the guns were placed on Siwash Point near Siwash Rock. They updated their catalog entries for the photographs. I will now correct the captions in this article. Here is the link to the updated page for the photo on the city archives website:

http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/royal-canadian-naval-volunteer-reserve-at-gun-emplacement-near-ferguson-point

--Skheraj (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Main photo: how was such an ugly, unrepresentative photo of the park even found?

113.22.154.210 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Now changed infobox image to labeled aerial map as at 20:09, 30 December 2012. There is a good number of views of the park in the main part of the article, and the map helps to locate places described. Qexigator (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that Prospect Point is incorrectly shown as "Prostpect Point". Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Map

Many articles related to Stanley Park could benefit from a locator map of the park. @Tagishsimon: Might you be willing to create one? If not, no problem, you've just been so helpful with creating maps in the past. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: no probs - I'll make on in about 6 hours. If there's anything more I should know before I start, leave notes here :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Here's version 1. Happy to change it if needsbe. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• 
  "Stanley Park Vancouver"

@Tagishsimon: This is perfect, thank you so much! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Vancouver, Canada.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Questionable and potentially revisionist?

The part near the top that says "Stanley Park has a long history. The land was originally used by Indigenous peoples for thousands of years before British Columbia was colonized by the British during the 1858 Fraser Canyon Gold Rush and was one of the first areas to be explored in the city." Could probably use some sort of proof attached to these claims. 2604:3D08:B980:16E0:A0C9:BA71:6B60:6AFE (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

While the lead section has no obligation to provide inline citations to reliable sources (proof), it is meant to be based on the body of the article which does cite reliable sources. In this case the History section has citations. Do they satisfy your need for proof? I am not sure if all sources are available online, but in any case they should be checked before material is removed from the article. I wasn't clear on what revisionist meant in this case. Commander Keane (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)