Talk:Lethbridge/Archive 1

Lethbridge Flag

That is not the flag of Lethbridge. I tried to change it but I don't know how, so please somebody who does know how should get rid of it.--EatAlbertaBeef 18:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Until I can find the actual Lethbridge flag, we'll leave that one up there. It might be an old flag that was used at Fort Hamilton. Phoenix2 19:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, this is proving to be more difficult than I expected. If anyone can find the Lethbridge flag, please upload that image and replace the current flag. Phoenix2 20:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I set the header style to remove the flag image, upload the real flag to "Lethbridge, Alberta Flag.jpg", and change the Header format to "Flag" --BCKILLa 21:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No, its a joke from this site.Poorly Done Paint Pictures.--EatAlbertaBeef 23:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke. That is Lethbridge's actual flag. It is not flown anywhere in the city, however; if that makes any difference. --kmsiever 16:12, 01 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If anyone does have the Lethbridge flag, they can add it to the page or just upload the image and make a note of that on this page. Phoenix2 03:50, 30 May 2005

(UTC)

Earlier, we debated and determined that this flag wasn't the Lethbridge flag. Yesterday, as I drove by City Hall, three flags were waving. The Canadian flag, an Alberta Centennial flag, and the Lethbridge flag, which was in fact the flag pictured on the right. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have the wrong flag at City Hall. Phoenix2 18:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) I have talked to a few people and this seems to more likely be the flag for fort whoop-up, and if you go down to the fort the flag is there, and also etched into the posts of the sign welcoming you to fort whoop-up. --66.103.219.32 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I live in Lethbridge. This flag flies at the city hall (or at least it did at the previous city hall; I haven't checked recently at the new city hall). It is the official flag of Lethbridge. Whether it started as a flag of Fort Whoop-up or not is irrelevant, since has been adopted as the official flag of the city. --Kmsiever 14:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you know whether the official version is as irregular? Shinobu 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is. It's likely the worst flag I have ever seen. --Kmsiever 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My word... if you could one day snap a photo, that would be great. Although I realize that you need special wind conditions etc. before the flag will fly properly at city hall... Do you also happen to know why Lethbridge chose this flag (and chose not to regularize it)? (I hope this doesn't sound like "What were they thinking?") Shinobu 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's too bad it wouldn't be lighter tonight. I am going to the city hall this evening. As I said previously, I am not sure if it flies currently at city hall, but it did at the old city hall. I will try to remember to check tonight. I believe the flag used to fly over Fort Whoop-up back when it was operational as a fort. I have no idea why they didn't regularise it. I certainly have contemplated on more than one occasion the question, what were they thinking. --Kmsiever 18:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by the mayor's office. The mayor's EA emailed me this picture to show me the official, (albeit ugly,) flag of Lethbridge, Alberta.
-- Methylsoy 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's (slightly) less irregular than the image we've got though. Shinobu 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

Several blocks of text that were added at the beginning of May have been directly copied and pasted from other websites such as Economic Development Lethbridge and City of Lethbridge. Shouldn't these be changed? --kmsiever 16:54, 01 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the content of the Lethbridge, Alberta, page to what it was at the beginning of May. If anyone has a concern with missing content, feel free to re-add it while making sure the content is not simply copied and pasted from third party sources (such as those I mentioned on 01 June 2005). --kmsiever 22:51, 07 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The city information box did not have to be removed. Phoenix2 16:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the page to a previous version that was free of copyright infringement. That version did not have the city information box. If there was no copyright infringement, it wouldn't have been an issue. --kmsiever 19:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mormon Population

Adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not make up a large percentage of the Christian population in Lethbridge. According to StatsCan 2001 numbers, 63% of Christians are Protestant, while 30 percent are Catholic. StatsCan does not maintain number of Mormons. There is no guarantee that Mormons indicated they were Protestant in the 2001 census. They could have indicated they were any of the available denominations (Protestant, Catholic, Christian Orthodox, or Christian, n.i.e.). No one maintains accurate numbers of the number of Mormons in Lethbridge. One can make assumptions based on the worldwide average population of a stake being between 3,000 and 3,500. There are three stakes in Lethbridge and the Lethbridge Alberta East Stake only has three wards and one branch within the Lethbridge city limits. Based on these assumptions, one could presume (accuracy notwithstanding) that the population of Mormons in Lethbridge is around 7,000 or 8,000. Again, this cannot be verified with any accuracy without polling the 19 individual wards and branches within the city limits. Nevertheless, if the 7,000-8,000 number was accurate, the number comes to between 9-10% of the total population of Lethbridge and less than 16% of the total Christian population. This is less than 1/5 of the the Christina population and less than 1/10 of the entire population. This is not large by an means. --kmsiever 17:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you believe 9-10% to be small. Put that into perspective... in a larger city (say Calgary), 10% would amount to more than 100,000 people! And you don't believe this to be significant? That is an extremely large percentage to be representative on one group of people. If those numbers are right, then they are definitely worth noting. Also note that StatsCan indicates on their webpage that Mormons are grouped with Protestants for their statistical purposes [1]. That said, you are right, neither the city, the province, nor the nation have taken the time to conduct a census of the Mormon population in Lethbridge. That is why I did not include numbers. However, it is no secret that there is a high population of Mormons in Lethbridge and southern Alberta, and to not even take the time to mention that in the article is very misleading... even if you must attach some kind of disclaimer as to the exact number. Mormons also played an integral part in the city's history and this IS a published fact. I am neither Mormon nor from Lethbridge, and yet this knowledge was very common to me, even before I did any research. Any failure to mention them is foolish. You don't have to group them in statistical areas of the article (since there are no hard numbers), but I should hope that somebody can at least add them to a history section. Not everything worth noting has a number attached to it. --Tyson2k

But 9-10% is small. It is certainly smaller than the 90-91% who are not Mormon. It most certainly is not an extremely large percentage to be representative of one group of people. Look at the Catholics. They amount to over 30% in Lethbridge. Mormons are at the most 30% of that amount. Regarding Mormons being counted with protestants, that is only for those who indicated they were Mormon in the census. There is no place on the census to indicate you are Mormon. Only those who specifically wrote down Mormon would have been counted as Protestant. Those who chose Christian n.i.e would not have been. While I do agree with you there is a high population of Mormons in parts of southern Alberta, there is not a high population in Lethbridge compared to the rest of the city's population. In addition, Mormon's have played very little in the city's history. The city was originally founded by the NWMP, and later populated by coal miners. When the Mormons came up from Utah, the settled in Cardston to escape persecution from polygamy and such towns as Raymond and Magrath to work on irrigation crews. Outside of the one Mormon mayor and the occasional Mormon members of city council, Mormons have had next to no influence on the city's history. I am Mormon and in Lethbridge. I have no problems indicating that there is a Mormon population or that such population is higher per capita than in other centres. However, what does bother me is using misleading words such as "large proportion", which implies a comparison to other Christian denominations in Lethbridge. Perhaps a better way would be something along the lines of: "While Statistics Canada does not include numbers of Mormons in their census reports, it is estimated that there are nearly 10,000 adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Lethbridge. At between nine and ten percent of the city's population, this is sigfifcantly higher than the national average of 0.5%". What do others think of this? Kmsiever 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, there are so many Mormons in Lethbridge it would almost be an insult to just shrug them off as Protestants. Phoenix2 18:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's likely Statscan lumped them with protestants. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Kmsiever, I like that sentence ("While Statistics Canada does not include numbers of Mormons in their census reports, it is estimated that there are nearly 10,000 adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Lethbridge. At between nine and ten percent of the city's population, this is sigfifcantly higher than the national average of 0.5%"). That is exactly what I thought should go there. Nevertheless, I will still disagree with you. I think 9% is RELATIVELY large. Even in the most multicultural of cities, it would be unusual to see such a high percentage for other minority religions such as Islam, Budhist, etc. Catholic and Protestant are only higher because they are the dominant religions in Canada. -Tyson2k

If no one has any objections or ideas how to modify this sentence, I will go ahead and make that change. -Kmsiever 17:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Earl Andrew, StatsCan DOES lump them with Protestants, but this is still misleading as it is only effective for those Mormons who actually INDICATE on census forms that they are Protestant. -Tyson2k

I don't know if any of you are actually from Lethbridge, but 9-10% is big, not to mention the old cliche quality not quantity. What I mean by that is that the Mormons have a bigger impact than 10% of the population would normally indicate. Phoenix2 23:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I am from Lethbridge. Mormons have very little impact in Lethbridge, despite the claims made by local conspiracy theorists. If anyone controls the moral fabric of the community, it is all the evangelicals. - Kmsiever 16:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What the duce is that supposed to mean? Uh, I don't think there are that many conspiracy theorists in Lethbridge, Ksmiever. Phoenix2 03:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say there are many, only that there are conspiracy theorists. One only has to read the letters to the editor in the local paper to see that. -- Kmsiever

It should also be mentioned that in the entire Southern Alberta region the Mormon population is significantly higher than the national average. Phoenix2 03:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not in a Lethbridge article. -- Kmsiever

Population growth

The population figures were updated today and it looks like Lethbridge's population is shrinking once again. Does anyone know how far apart the last two censuses (censii?) were? We should maybe update the section that talks about a 2.2% population growth to note that the population has leveled off and is now shrinking. Alternatively, this may be a statistical fluke caused by far too many censuses taken recently in Lethbridge. --Yamla 17:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, they were updated yesterday. The population isn't shrinking. There was an error in the census count. The correct count for the 2005 municipal census is what I added yesterday. The change in the two totals will not significantly affect the growth amount. There certainly have not been too many censuses recently in Lethbridge (one this year and the next most recent in 2002). -- Kmsiever 17:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. --Yamla 21:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Brocket

Disclaimer: I have edited the Brocket 99 page. I did not create the page, however. Nevertheless, I feel it is reasonable to link to that page from here. The content was created by Lethbridge residents and does reflect on some, though by no means most, of the population of that city. I welcome discussion on this topic, though I am not the one who continually replaces the link (nor, for that matter, one of the people deleting it in the first place). -- Yamla 08:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is it reasonable to link to the article from here? If we link to the Brocket 99 page, should we create and then link to articles for every other insignificant activity carried out by Lethbridge residents? Whether the ideas of the creators of the tape are reflective of the Lethbridge population or not is irrelevant. It's an insignificant event that is not very well-known (if known at all) outside of southern Alberta. I'm apprehensive of having Dar Heatherington's information here, but at least it made international news. -- Kmsiever 03:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously forgot to sign my initial comment. Anyway, as mentioned on the Brocket 99 discussion page, I strongly disagree that this tape is unknown outside of southern Alberta. I have never lived in southern Alberta and have only been to Lethbridge once. I'm not even a Canadian citizen. My roommate here in Edmonton has also heard of Brocket 99, though she, too, has never lived in southern Alberta. She did not hear about the tape from me. In all fairness, she did not know the tape originated in Lethbridge. You should not have reverted the link on the page without further discussion. However, I will not at this time re-add the link as this would indicate I was discussing this in bad faith. --Yamla 16:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

If we want to use anecdotal evidence to determine whether Brocket 99 is well known, I have lived in three provinces and three states. I went to seven schools. I had never heard of Brocket 99 until only two years ago and it was after I moved to Lethbridge. -- Kmsiever 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am originally from Ontario and I knew about it there. It was famous!!! There are websites dedicated to it as well as two documentries about it. I Calgary one of the documentries was shown recently and another is in production. It is not a minor event.

I see that Kmsiever is from Lethbridge. I think his/her concern is this shows badly on Lethbridge and they mask this as minor news not worthy of reporting. However, Wikipedia isn't a "promotions" website designed to show only the best features of a given city. It is here to provide facts and the facts are Brocket 99 was produced in Lethbridge and provides a comment on the state of native relations. Furthermore, it is not up to Kmsiever to decide what goes in the Lethbridge page or not. Wikipedia is for all to contribute so if people want it in there it isn't Kmsiever's decision to censor it. I say it stays. 199.126.60.75

What you think is actually irrelevant in the matter since my place of residence has nothing to do with removing it. I am not from Lethbridge; I only live here. I have only lived here for the least seven years. I don't care about Lethbridge's reputation. I care about including only noteworthy information about Lethbridge on this page. I do not dispute the fact that Brocket 99 was produced in Lethbridge. However, many things have been produced in Lethbridge, yet are not shown on this page. For example, should we post a lit of all of Byron Chief-Moon's films just because they were filmed in Lethbridge and he is a University of Lethbridge Student? For the record, as a Wikipedia editor, I have as much say in what goes in the Lethbridge article as any other editor. That being said, it should be removed until a consensus is reached. -- Kmsiever 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, so far there SEEMS to be three or four people, though most of them are anonymous, who believe the Brocket link should stay in the page. You are the only person reverting the changes, and you are doing so AFTER I requested that we discuss the link here. As to Chief-Moon's films, I would support a single link on the Lethbridge page to a wiki page listing all his films, assuming they were filmed in Lethbridge. --Yamla 16:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the change because someone added it despite my instruction to see the Talk Page. Hopefully what I said the next time (what is it up to now? sixth? seventh time?) is clearer. The point isn't whether there actually are three or four people who want Brocket 99 to stay. The issue is if they have a good reason for it to stay. Their word that they and a few of their friends heard of Brocket 99 is hardly enough to say it belongs and certainly isn't verifiable or reliable. It isn't any more verifiable than me saying I and all of my fiends and acquaintances had never heard about it. As I said before, I don't think the information about Dar Heathrington should be here either since it is of little consequence, yet because it received attention in international news media, it is appropriate to be included here. The international news media is a reliable mechanism of determining inclusion. I am doubtful it is the only, one, so there must be a different mechanism we can use to determine whether or not this should be included. I don't think an obscure documentary (one of which I hadn't heard until someone mentioned it here) counts either. Regarding Chief-Moon's films, if he gets a single link, hen I think Brocket 99 should get a single link. If Brocket 99 gets a paragraph, then all other obscure events nd individuals in Lethbridge (including Chief-Moon) should get entire paragraphs. we should be approaching these things appropriately. Lethbridge tries to make itself into a larger and more prominent community than it really is and the last thing we need is an article overgrown with weedy tidbits of useless information. -- Kmsiever 15:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A google search on "Brocket 99" Lethbridge gives 87 hits. A google search on "Chief-Moon" Lethbridge gives 91 hits. For this reason, I'm quite happy for Chief-Moon to get a similar amount of visibility on the Lethbridge page. I would suggest a single link in both cases, assuming there's a wiki page for Chief-Moon of course. On the other hand, Brocket 99 is perhaps more relevant as it more directly goes to race relationships in Lethbridge and the surrounding area. This would imply that it should be given a more prominent position. I think the whole thing is rather silly, however, and I am quite happy to settle for a single link. I do disagree that the tape is obscure though I suppose this depends entirely on how you define obscure. Anyway, would you be satisfied with a single link on the page rather than the paragraph this was taking up before? I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, I'm not the one reverting your paragraph removals, but this would satisfy me. --Yamla 16:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I am not vehemently opposed to having the paragraph about Brocket 99 in the article. I feel, however, that if we add it, we can expect edits in the future of every little inconsequential thing. And that is what I want to avoid. The Lethbridge article should be a quality article (and it probably still has a way to go to get there), and nipping all this in the bud is a good way to ensure we get there. I have no issues at all with adding a link. -- Kmsiever 19:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've put in a single link, as I believe we have agreed. I'll help revert any addition of an entire paragraph for the tape unless it is further discussed here. Thanks for your feedback, Kmsiever. --Yamla 19:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I re-ordered the 'See Also' list. As a result, it comes first. Maybe that will help as well. -- Kmsiever 20:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)