Talk:Demographics of Metro Vancouver

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

Visible Minorities Chart[edit]

Since, according to the article, there is no visible majority, how can there be visible minorities? Or rather, all groups are now visible minorities (which is how things should be IMO)

Homelessness[edit]

THis section seems to be misplaced, over-emphaisized and politically motivated. Why focus so much on a tiny demographic (3000 people)?

Need for sources[edit]

A great deal of information has been added to the section on Asian Immigration. It is interesting, but, in accordance with Wikipedia policy on verifiability, we need to have sources for all information. Please provide citations. Sunray 08:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note, one of the paragraphs compares California and Vancouver. This is not parallel. You need to compare a city to a city or a state to a province. Sunray 08:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In technical terms, yes, but the geodemotic reality or whatever you want to call it is that Vancouver is an informal pocket-state with its own economy, society and identity, vs other parts of Canada and its own province. And actually ditto with the term "California", which in the comparison would seem to be with urban California; all of a same, other than the fierce rivalry between "northern California" (the Bay Area and environs, which is actually in the southern half of the state...) and southern California; the California hinterland and to some degree the smaller cities are very much a different world, just as with the Interior here.Skookum1 07:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the order of precedence?[edit]

Asian immigration comes first, Europeans (the largest group) second, and aboriginal people last. Shouldn't that be the other way around? I'll be changing it, with various other details added (the complexity of the British element and its various different backgrounds/routes to get here) and the what-for and when certain groups arrived (Croats and some Serbs post-WWI rather than before; Scandinavians, Germans, Italians and others from the very start in BC, particularly Scandinavians in early Vancouver because of the logging and mills and fishery (Germans and Italians and others more in the goldfields, away from Vancouver, until the railway anyway and re the Italians a new wave after WWI, re the Germans a new wave after WWII). The ethnic history of Gastown vs post-railway Vancouver is also a propos, as well as of course the drastic impacts of the Great War and the Great Depression upon the civic populations of the day. More on this later.Skookum1 07:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino Section[edit]

-I wonder, Korea has his own section, why does it not have a Filipino section? Instead they've been put collectively under "Other asian". Filipinos have the highest asian population second only to India and China in Vancouver. The statistic in the article shows ethnic Filipino has twice the size the population than Korea in Vancouver. It would have been understandable to put it under 'Other Asian' if the population is miniscule, but Vancouver has two times more Filipino ethics than Korean ethnics. Yet Korean section is there, Filipino isn't.

Is Canada biased towards people coming from developed nations vs people coming from underdeveloped regions?

No; rather the opposite in my experience. Well, true enough that the large "invisible minority" populations of Russians, Poles, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians and various other not-visible minorities-but-still-minorities aren't exactly from the developed world; but they get nearly zilch in the way of press or media or civil rights issues discussions; As for why the Korean section is there, taht's because Koreans saw fit to write up some stuff; which at one time was an original research thingamawhatzit called Koreatown, Vancouver (which doesn't exist and extrapolated blocks around a few private schools/student centres; that article was AfD/deleted or Koreatown (Vancouver) maybe it was). I would welcome more on BC's growing filipino community, and am aware that filipinos now surpass Chinese in immigrants annually; but that takes sources and time to contribute....you are welcome to do so yourself; more balance is needed here concerning non-"fashionable" minorities whose stories/data tend to dominate public and government discussion...and wikipedia coverage. As far as media and academia, quite frankly, Canada is officially and pseudo-officially (media, academia, advertising) biased against people coming from developed nations, very heavily so in fact; and in academia also descendants of those nations, even more heavily.Skookum1 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

anyone know how to update this to the 2016 data?[edit]

anyone know how to update this to the 2016 data?

More on content issues[edit]

Please see my new note on Talk:Vancouver re the intro and content of the demographics section of that article; same issues apply here and have already been raised; I'm looking for co-input on how to rephrase the section, and to add to the content of this article likewise. Cites of for the interethnic and interracial marriage rates can be deduced from the "multiple responses" section of the census, although there are other references to this issue; likewise the particularly British-from-Britain nature of the British stock - a majority of those of British stock to this day have at least grandparents from the Isles; those with British-born parents have of course declined in proportion in recent years. Still a higher rate than in other parts of Canada, which distinguishes it from the British-from-other-parts-of-Canada, particularly from the centuries-old British stock in ON, QC and the Atlantic. As for the aboriginal content, somewhere there's a cite that Vancouver's the largest population of First Nations and Metis in the province, although they're negligible in the city equation (though highly visible nonetheless) relative to the 10-40% in smaller centres. Other than Mission and maybe North Van and, farther out, Chilliwack and Squamish, they're pretty out-of-sight in the 'burbs, too. Come to think of it is there a demographics section in Lower Mainland? (I'll look and maybe add some stuff).Skookum1 09:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics[edit]

Those vulgar and misleading piecharts on visible minorities obviously got me going; more work is needed on this page to give it balance and a good historical perspective. there's redlinks in the tables that could use somee attention, I did what I could about linking while making/compiling these; maybe somebody could check my calculations (I used 0.00449 rounded up to 0.01, though....). The European, real European, content to Vancouver's population is too important to just shunt it all into one group, as the visible minority-leaning people have done. I doubt the guy who made the chart will want to make one for this; I'll see if I can figure out my Mac's equivalent of PowerPoint later and generate one, using the regional-grouping chart. I made them sortable but is there a way to have them default to a certain sort-order on first display? i.e. so the max population shows first? I guessI could just reorder them by hand, but.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC) NB these are obviously Metro Vancouver data, not City ofVancouver; not sure if Census Canada even releases that stuff, think you have to buy it...thought I found Mission's hte other day - but it was 1996's.Skookum1 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on same issue in previous post - wouldn't the City of Vancouver maintain its own demographics tables, at least race-based ones if not by ethnic breakdown; or more likely language-based ones? Or the School District would certainly have such stats on the student/home populations no?Skookum1 (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"X people" links v. "X Canadian" links[edit]

Re this edit I believe the proper linkage should be instead of e.g. American people it should be American Canadian. Ditto with ethnic German, the link should be to German Canadian and so on...."ethnic German" implies being part of German culture; many of those of German descent are fully assimilated, i.e. Canadian.Skookum1 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably a whole bunch in that list that need sending to a "Something Canadian". I just noticed the problems with the edit. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's American political correctness gone mad! Leave it out of Canada! NorthernThunder (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO,it's not, there's a guideline about this somewhere; there's a distinction in terms of what should link where. You're accusing the WRONG person of "political correctness"....Skookum1 (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion section terms[edit]

Are "humanism, darwinism" and Eckankar and Wiccanism (sic) REALLY mentioned in the Census under those terms? Or is that some editor's inclusion of those terms to define "No religious affiliation" and/or flesh out the "other religions" section? Terms not included in the source should NOT be interpolated here.Skookum1 (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visible minority pie chart[edit]

I've always found this offensive, but then as an unhyphenated Canadian I find classifying people by "visible" and "non-visible" as offensive....because Korean, Japanese, Chinese etc are really ethnicities, irrespective of their being "visible" races, the "white" section of the pie chart ("non-visible minorities" actually including aboriginal peoples, please note...and "visible minorities" including white South Americans such as Argentines who are no less Italian or German than those Canadians of Italian or German origin....), this chart should at least be re-made to reflect the diversity of the ethnic spectrum, not to tub-thump about being "visibly minor"....there has always been a large population in VAncouver of heavily-accented Europeans and in many cases unassimilated Europeans of all ages; Poles and Russians lately most significant, Germans and Ukrainians and Scandinavians and other Eastern Europeans at points in the past...it's a conceit/deceit among "visible minority" scholars and politicians that "all white people are the same".....pandering to that position is an unfortunate turn in this country's political culture....but in terms of visual scope it unfairly lumps all people of many origins into one artificial category "not a visible minority". BEtter, perhaps, to be an invisible one......StatsCan has a political agenda, including promoting the government's interpretation of multiculturalism as "celebrating visible minorities" while submerging the others; it's not sufficient in relation to VAncouver's history to boil it down to specific Asian ethnicities vs. one big soon-to-be-minority....the Koreans are relative newcomers in the cty's ethnic spectrum, while others who have been here since the start aren't mentioned....just because Ottawa panders to the political and cultural biases of newcomer populations doesn't mean those of us who are happily assimilated should tug our forelocks and go along wit that bias...and there's cites out there about the kind of opinion I'm fielding here....this page also needs marriage/employment and other socioeconomic breakdowns, such as you'd find on US and UK pages, instead of obsessing over divisive issues such as visible minority status and religion....Skookum1 (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about income?[edit]

Shouldn't a demographics page have a section about the income distribution in the city? I'm thinking about average and median income of certain parts of the city, income equality/inequality, income in relation to background, income in relation to education, and probably more. Vancouver is obviously a prosperous city, the answer I was looking for when reading the Vancouver article and this one was simply: how prosperous? If anyone has good data, it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.198.230 (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal section[edit]

There are two cite tags in that section, one for Vancouver being the largest grouping of native people in the province; the "aboriginal origins" section in the first table gives 59,110 though the combined North American Indian and Metis sections total up just over 60,000.....I'd thought the Metis in combination with non-status were in the same range, or are if you include unregistered metis and non-status (though there's no good census data available on non-status, which their organization often complains about). The second bit can be reworded, though it's still the largest concentration of Metis in the province (tell me somewhere else that has 17,000 Metis in BC...) and likewise for the aboriginal figure (though that includes a handful of Inuit, not just First Nations, and also the Metis figure). But do we need a page somewhere that says "Vancouver has the largest population of natives in the province" or is the visible evidence in the data sufficient? It's a line I've often heard in news/historical coverage but am not in the mood to have to go hunt up, i.e. as a phrase.Skookum1 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StatsCan links yield 404[edit]

I came here tonight wanting to use the StatsCan link to swithc cities and look up the Hungarian population in Prince Rupert and Terrace, for a "List of North American cities with large Hungarian populations or something like that, which could use more Canadian content (though ethnic lists have serious notability issues).Skookum1 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Demographics[edit]

I came to this page looking for statistics on LGBT people in Vancouver. Specifically, I've heard that Vancouver has a large trans population and culture. The demographics section in the main Vancouver article at least mentions a large gay community, where this article has no info on sexual demographics at all. 70.36.140.158 (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age Demographics[edit]

As noted above regarding Sexual Demographics, there is no section on Age demographics in Vancouver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.w.t.n (talk • contribs) 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are the CMA and GRVD identical?[edit]

This line:

The Demographics of Vancouver concern population growth and structure for Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Figures given here are for the Greater Vancouver Regional District, however, not for the City of Vancouver proper.

shouldn't it say the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area instead?Skookum1 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to StatsCan, the CMA and the GVRD/Metro Vancouver/whatever it calls itself are identical. See this.  █ EMARSEE 05:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but if so, and it is so, shouldn't it say the CMA rather than the RD/boardname? It's like Development Regions; e.g. the SW Mainland comprises the SLRD, SSRD, GVRD and FVRD but it's a different name and different arm of the government (in that case the provincial one not the federal). Shouldn't the CMA name be used?Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demographics of Vancouver. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 00:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of Vancouver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of Vancouver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_Metro_Vancouver&oldid=1201447145"