Talk:Surrey, British Columbia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Barnston Island

I'd think with Barnston island being unincorporated, it's not actually part of Surrey as mentioned.Zedcaster 07:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Town Centres

I took the liberty of creating stubs for the town centres (the Cloverdale article previously existed). --Kmsiever 16:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

"Yet even though they are occasionally on the receiving end of racist violence[1], it seems the South Asian community always finds a way to bring more and more violence into the community, endangering once safe neighbourhoods." Why has nobody commented on this yet?!?!? this is a statement professing a very xenophobic, straight up racist point of view!!! remove this immediately!!! 65.93.194.50 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Justin

Changed some of the wording about Cadman's controversial vote in parliament, tried to make it a little more NPOV. Previous poster had referred to the vote within a context of "notoriety". Also added the stuff at the bottom about surrey-girls and boys. Figured something should be said about that. Don't live in surrey anymore, but grew up there, and still carry the burden of the stigma. Nonetheless still proud to be a Trojan! (West Whalley Junior Secondary mascot)--67.70.32.211 12:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The "high crime rates" sentence needs to be NPOV'd!  ;)

Most of this text added on 18 Mar 2004 by 24.84.149.215 is taken almost verbatim from the surrey website. It's very adjective laden and gushes a great deal about the city. Clearly this is a NPOV problem. Dostal 14:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed POV "One of the most beautiful cities in the GVRD". Most in the region and in BC as well, consider Surrey the Anus of the Lower Mainland and Walley to be the Anus of Surrey.

Thanks for providing a link to the definition of "anus" as I had no idea what that word meant beforehand. Drouillm 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
   :yeah Surrey certianly is not the most scenic places in the GVRD. I guess I live in an Anus :(

Justin: because those rednecks in the Valley suburbs trying to blame ethnics for violence while chanting 'there is no racism here' mantra, 'Safe neighborhoods'??? Whalley and Newton are much safer now as opposed to ten years ago when they were famous hangouts for the biker gangs and the so called trailer park crowd not to mention neo-nazis. The very reason for Surrey and more specifically Whalley not going the way of East Hastings is the fact that large number of working class immigrants have moved in. These people talking about Surrey conveniently forget East Vancouver which is a much more violent place compared to East hastings Whalley looks more like a 'normal' suburb(it used ot be a lot worse 20 years ago when it was almost entirely working class white), most of Surrey's 'crime' is car-theft and grow-op related in lower-middle class white areas, but is till lower than Vancouver's on a per capita basis. Check RCMP and VPD webites or crimestoppers you won't find many east indian or asian faces there, infact more asians than east indians but still less than whites or even natives, seems like someone has been listening to the CKNW a lot or reading the Sun and the Province or watching BCTV errr Global BC, it took a long time for them to drop the BCTV name afraid of losing the white con audience that they think are their only viewers, no wonder the CTV and City have eaten into their share especially luring young viewers, same with the Sun their current readership is where it was in the mid 50's while the population has grown 3 times, its not a coinicdence that Global, Sun and the Province are owned by the same corporation, these media outlets focus on some brazen elements in minority groups that are responsible for 5 violent incidents a year with at least 5 followups per news item if it shows a minority in bad light and ignore or under report the almost daily violence involving whites unless its Pickton style mass murder which people across the country are watching.

The reason for this, they openly state when minorities protest is, that their conservative readers/viewers want this...they get away with this divisiveness and hatred while the weak and vulnerable sections of ethnics suffer violent racial hatred in places like Surrey and used to in East and South Vancouver streets in the 70's...its hard to find a major Canadian city where racial hatred is swept under the rug or sometimes justified with bizarre arguements as in Greater Vancouver, media in places like Calgary has a better record of tackling racism than Vancouver, no wonder it holds the dubious distinction for occurence of a race riot in Canada, and Surrey holds the disitinction of racially motivated murders of minorites by neo-nazis. Its hard to come across such racially/culturally divided major city in Canada(or the US except for the south/sout-west) where the main representatives of the caucasian population are so prone to divisive thinking and race driven ideology as Greater Vancouver. Surrey and fraser Valley was and still is home to a number of far-right groups, though many have moved to the Okanagan now. We are not racist it just looks that way. March 31, 2007

Introductory Paragraph

Can somebody cite where Surrey is ever referred to as "the hood" independent of every other neighbourhood in the world? I've lived in the Greater Vancouver area my entire life and never associated somebody saying "the hood" with Surrey. I know that it's not the nicest city in the Greater Vancouver area - but I also don't think that this "nickname" should be included on the page. joecdn 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside a small teenage clique, I doubt anyone refers to it as such. I removed the vandalism. --Kmsiever 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

crime

The info at Bait car on Surrey should be in this article too.—msh210℠ 18:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It should note that Surrey is the Car Theft Capital of North America

Fair use rationale for Image:Surryeflag.gif

\

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Surryeflag.gif

Image:Surryeflag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Waverley

I removed the recent additions to the supposed Township of Waverley. I found nothing on Google or the City's website. Before it gets re-added, please include a reference to prove this actually happened. --Kmsiever (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Could anyone clarify the actual list of sister cities surrey, bc has? The recent addition of Dongjak-gu, South Korea is not mentioned on the official list on the surrey website. Furthermore, the website for Dongjak-gu, SK has any number of errors on it (surrey near washington dc, numerous spelling errors of officials names, etc), and only mentions "Friendly cooperative agreement", which I could see as meaning anything. Knowledgeum (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have recieved a responce from the city of surrey regarding the official sister cities. They only include the two listed on this main page: http://www.surrey.ca/Doing+Business/Business+Development/Surreys+Sister+Cities.htm . They do state that they do have several friendship cities, but that Dongjak-gu, South Korea is not one of them. I have removed that city from the list. I can gladly copy the cities responce if requested. Knowledgeum (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

In the demographics section should "Asian" be "South Asian"? I'm pretty sure it should be but I don't have the numbers. Also, if the city estimates 400 000 people why does it still say 347 000 in the template thing? TastyCakes 22:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

mm I now notice that the religion percentages add up to 68.7%.. Somewhere along the way some of the numbers have become screwed. Does anyone know the actual numbers? TastyCakes 22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi I changed the population of Surrey from 347000 to it's actualy number of over 400000 according to http://www.surrey.ca/Doing+Business/Population+and+Demographics/Population+Estimates+and+Projections.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.65.188 (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

This parent article has little information on the areas of the city because they have been split out into stubs. It would be more helpful to bring them all into this article where a reader can get the information all in one place. SilkTork *YES! 23:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a good point. But no, I think it would be better if they remained as separate articles. Surrey is a huge city geographically, and its 6 town centres (boroughs, if you will) are each very distinct and sizeable neighbourhoods on their own (I live in one). They're all prominently linked in the lead too so I don't think readers would have much of a problem finding information. -- Ϫ 08:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
However there probably should be a section titled "Town centers" with a short summary detailing each. -- Ϫ 03:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Population

Stop changing the population, we use the Canadian Census for that (2006) when the new 2011 comes out then we can change it. Please check this out WikiProject Canadian communities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.167.222 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did we go backward?

This edit went from the 2011 stats to the 2006 stats. Unless a good reason is presented, we should revert. No reason was given in the edit summary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. The Interior (Talk) 20:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Multiculturalism"

Surrey is also fully representative of the multicultural mix of Canada

No, it isn't. Only about 13% of Canada's population belong to visible minorities, as opposed to 37% of Surrey. I've deleted the above sentence as it is not accurate.

37%? Where did you get that figure, and how old is it? I would venture, that it is at least 50%+. There are many places in Surrey, where caucasians are the minority.
according to the 2011 Canadian National Household Survey Focus on Geography - Surrey -52.6%of its total population (468,251) were visible minority — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.80.28 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

City of Surrey flag?

Did you see this [1] The logo Is used on the City of Surrey flag also? I live in the City of Surrey in Metro Vancouver. I suppose I will have to revert your edit unfortunately. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I too live in Surrey and it's not the city flag, it's a logo that is flown, but not the official city flag.
Not a great reference, but http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ca-bc-su.html shows both the flag and the logo flag (below). Before we change the flag to the logo, we should have a reference that it's official. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.surrey.ca/files/3004Att6graphicstandards.pdf never calls it a flag.
  • OK, Its a logo then even if its flown as a flag. But the article should have a visual identification of the logo or else someone using this wiki article might get confused. I placed an image of the logo lower in the City of Surrey article as Mayor Watts likes to have this logo flown around the city...and wants Whalley to be called Central City. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense. We'll see if it passes FUR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Notable People

This section is being filled up with people who aren't very notable. Some trimming of this list is in order. Some are borderline notable, others their notability is tenuous at best. I will come back to this later, or you can trim the list.--Daffydavid (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability is already defined. In short, if a subject has an article on Wikipedia, it's likely that the subject is notable, although their article could be challenged. That has happened in the past and the article deleted.
What sort of trimming are you suggesting? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I am seeing the list become bloated with politicians and minor sports figures(probably entertainers as well). Where do we draw the line, if we start listing every politician who was ever elected to office and every minor sports player, the list will soon become bigger than the whole Surrey article. I notice on other city pages that politicians generally are not mentioned unless they are very senior in the government and the same goes for sports players. There has to be a higher standard of notability. I brought it up here to see what others think. Thanks --Daffydavid (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where we draw the line. Since notability is defined, we may need to change the title and purpose of the section. I have no problems removing the recently added minor politicians though and adding a note to the section to that end. I also noticed that the articles do not mention the provenience of the subjects nor their relations to the subject. For instance, the first entry, Carolyn Arends, as subject I know personally, states that she lives in Surrey in the first line, although that isn't supported in the article. Similarly the second entry, Harry Bains, clearly indicates that the subject lives in Surrey and is somewhat notable in his party. The next two, Nuvraj Bassi and Rick Bognar, do not state their association with the city. That would be a starting point. Subjective "importance" criteria are harder to enforce though.
I notice that even more subjects were added after you posted your comments earlier today and before I had the chance to reply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I looked up Rick Bognar and the only reference to BC is Vancouver not Surrey, and he lived there from sometime after he was born to the age of 19 when he left and only then did something notable. I note this problem with some others on the list - that is - they only lived in Surrey for a period of time and not necessarily when they were notable. There must be guidance on this somewhere but I can't find it.--Daffydavid (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I found the guidance WP:FAMRES, quite a few people should be trimmed according to this. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
That's an essay and not a guideline, but I agree with most of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
True, it is an essay, but much of what we have on Wikipedia is essays not actual policies. Also, the essay is virtually unchanged since it was written 6 years ago so it's not controversial. Unless someone finds something else, it's the best we've got. --Daffydavid (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
We have pillars, policies, guidelines, essays, manuals of style (MoS) and opinions.
There's no indication whether it is or isn't controversial. It's just an essay.
As long as we agree that the essay is the guiding force on this article, then we have WP:CONSENSUS, and that's all that's needed, until a new consensus must be created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

New Surrey mayor

Around 7 PM December 8, Linda Hepner will be named mayor. So, why doesn't someone name her the new mayor of Surrey, British Columbia? Is this for User:Bearcat or Walter to do? This paragraph has to be fixed too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, sort of. Council still needs to be updated. The issues is Hepner wasn't sworn-in until this evening. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Walter. I was away with work and thought that you or Bearcat had forgotten here. Thanks for the update here on the new mayor. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Surrey, British Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Port facilities

A brief web search did not find any evidence that Port Kells and Port Mann are currently active as seaports, but based on satellite photos it looks like they actually are. If so, could someone confirm that with a citation and re-add them to List of ports and harbors of the Pacific Ocean? Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge neither are active seaports. Port Kells is too far upriver while Port Mann is a train yard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surrey,_British_Columbia/Archive_1&oldid=1091483623"